Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Public Expenditure

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for Scottish education of the White Paper on public expenditure.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Further information on the implications for Scottish education of the White Paper on public expenditure will be published shortly in the "Scottish Commentary".

Mr. Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the £61 million cut in the Scottish education budget is a severe blow to education in Scotland? Does he further acknowledge that suggestions about the teachers' pay dispute are not worth a docken, unless he is prepared to make money available to meet any sensible settlement? Will he admit to the House that the White Paper simply makes a wrong decision which should be reversed?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The reduction in education expenditure is smaller than the reduction in the number of pupils. Therefore, the sum provided for education in Scotland is more in real terms, per pupil, than ever before. I have spent a great deal of time and energy in recent weeks trying to get across to everybody —I have obviously failed, even with the hon. Gentleman — that if the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee suggests a good package of pay and conditions for teachers I am prepared to see whether I can find some money within my budget to deal with it. If that was not clear to the hon. Gentleman, I hope it is clear now.

Mr. Henderson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that although falling pupil numbers has resulted in more money per pupil being spent than before, there has been no comparable drop in the number of people in non-teaching posts dealing with the administration of education? Should not that aspect be examined further?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. His views are backed by the figures. At constant prices, expenditure per pupil in real terms in 1979–80 was £1,042, and in 1983–84 £1,151.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State recognise that a substantial amount of new money will have to be found

if the current industrial crisis in our schools is to be resolved? Will he stop pretending that the SJNC proposal has the support of the management side and is being considered by the unions? Will he bring forward a new initiative to resolve the dispute?

Mr. Younger: The views of all parties are clear. The teachers have made it clear that they would prefer an independent review of their pay. The management side has made it equally clear that, although it would prefer an independent review of pay and conditions, it is prepared to co-operate in discussing pay and conditions. I have made a clear offer. If a proper package of pay and conditions is put forward, I shall try to find some means of implementing it. That is a fair way out of a nasty situation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If everything is so rosy in the education system, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the teacher-pupil ratio has gone up? Will he define what he means by a "proper package"?

Mr. Younger: I cannot explain why the pupil-teacher ratio has gone up, because it has not. It is at its best level ever. By that I mean that we have the lowest number of pupils per teacher ever. That is a fact which no amount of head shaking will shake away.

Mr. Dewar: As the Secretary of State will guess, we have all been reading with interest the speculation in the Scottish press this morning about a new initiative. I have now had the opportunity to see the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which seems to offer a lot less than the press speculation. It is important that we should know exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind. If the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee decides to set up an independent review body to look at pay and conditions, will he approve of such a move? Does he accept that it should be properly independent and able, as Houghton did, to study comparable salary levels in the groupings that it thinks relevant? Will the Secretary of State undertake that if that exercise is carried out he will accept the findings?

Mr. Younger: As I think the letter to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) makes clear, none of that is for me. I was asked whether the SJNC could, if it wished, undertake an independent review of pay and conditions. The answer is that it has the right to carry out its functions in any way that it thinks fit. I have said that any package of proposals that comes to me must come from the SJNC. If it does, I shall see whether I can find a way to meet it.

Economic Situation

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Confederation of British Industry to discuss the economic situation.

Mr. Younger: I receive regular reports from the Scottish Confederation of British Industry on a range of economic matters. I have no formal plans at present to meet the Scottish CBI to discuss the economic situation.

Mr. Hamilton: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the CBI, will he discuss with it his intentions about


the stagnation of the construction industry, bearing in mind that thousands of craftsmen are at present unemployed? Will he further tell the CBI how he stands in relation to the proposed closure of the skillcentres and annexes which are vital for training people for the future?

Mr. Younger: On the first point, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about unemployment in the construction industry. I have managed to keep capital spending in the Scottish Office budget steady over the past five years. In fact, it is still slightly up in real terms on what it was in 1979–80. I accept that that is helpful, and I shall try to keep it that way if I can. Within the next week or two the Government Will be announcing their reaction to the MSC's proposals for the closure of some skillcentres in Scotland. As I understand the proposals, skill training in Scotland will be going up, not down, whether or not the skillcentres are closed.

Mr. Malone: My right hon. Friend will have noticed representations from the CBI about investment in the infrastructure. Can he confirm that those proposals have one difference compared with any put forward by the Opposition—namely, that they imply that there must be savings in other sectors before that investment can take place?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. That has been a constant theme of discussions that I have had with various bodies, including local authorities, over the past five years. It would be desirable to keep up capital spending, but to reduce current spending because it does not have the same good effect on the economy. I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Maclennan: By the time that he next meets the CBI, will the Secretary of State be able to say that when he has completed his period as the longest serving Secretary of State for Scotland he will have succeeded in bringing down unemployment?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure whether that is a question or a statement. Unemployment has been and remains the main problem facing our economy. The efforts that the Government have made to counter the economic problems that have caused it have led in recent months to an increase in the number of people in employment in Scotland, and that is welcome.

Limited List Prescribing

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement following his meeting with the British Medical Association, Scotland, to discuss the restricted list of medicines that will be available for prescription on the National Health Service.

Mr. Hugh Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of organisations in Scotland which have made representations on the proposals for limited list prescribing; how many he has met; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I have met representatives of the Scottish Council of the British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical General Council (Scotland). In addition, by the end of the consultation period we had received representations from some 60 organisations, and I shall list those in the Official Report.

Our proposals cover only some 10 per cent. of the drugs bill. The drugs that will remain available for prescription on the NHS will be sufficient to meet all clinical needs in the areas in question.

Mr. Ewing: How does the Minister know that the drugs that will remain available on the restricted list will be sufficient to meet the needs of NHS patients? How many of the 60 representations that he has received were in favour of his proposals, and how many were against? Does he understand the anxiety that is now being expressed throughout the medical profession and by patients in Scotland about the Government's proposals? Will he give an assurance that when the final list is published it will be more extensive than the rather restricted list with which we originally started?

Mr. MacKay: We received a considerable range of representations, and most conceded the need for and our ability to make savings on the drugs bill. Many were in favour of a limited list, but representations were made on drugs that should be on that list. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a committee of experts advising him on the list. When the House hears his statement on the final list, it will appreciate that the clinical needs of patients have been met.

Mr. Brown: Everyone in the House will agree with the need to keep down costs of prescriptions in the Health Service and to get value for money, so that is just a cliché. If the Government say that essential drugs will be made available under the NHS, who will decide—the general practitioner or somebody in St. Andrew's House?

Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the people whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has as his advisers, he will see that we are taking the advice of some very senior medical people. It is not just civil servants in St. Andrew's House or the Elephant and Castle who are advising my right hon. Friend. We are considering one of the suggestions that has come to us. If a doctor decides, for clinical reasons, to prescribe a drug that is on the banned list, we are considering ways in which that might be done. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's announcement.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend utterly condemn the scare tactics of the BMA over the limited list, but bear in mind some of its manifestly sound judgments on the limited list in relation to chronic arthritic and elderly patients?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I have read with great interest the sensible suggestions that have been made by doctors, even doctors who are implacably opposed to the scheme. However, many doctors have been absolutely unfair to their elderly patients in scaring them into thinking that they will not get suitable drugs after 1 April. To make matters worse, some doctors have made that suggestion about drugs that are not even in the therapeutic groups under consideration.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend clear up the misunderstanding between prescribing and dispensing doctors, bearing in mind that dispensing practitioners have a particular role to fill in rural Scotland, where chemists' shops are not readily available?

Mr. MacKay: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a misunderstanding of a reply by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health the other day, when he said that prescribing general medical practitioners would not be permitted to sell drugs to their National Health Service patients. We are considering the representations that have been made to us on behalf of dispensing doctors in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom on whether they should be able to sell to their patients drugs that are on the banned list.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the overwhelming opposition to the whole scheme on the ground that it undermines one of the basic principles of the NHS? Will he now reply to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and turn his mind to the problem of rural doctors who not only prescribe but dispense drugs? How can it be right that they may be required to charge patients for certain drugs?

Mr. MacKay: I thought that I had already answered that point, but obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening, as usual. I said that we were considering the matter of dispensing doctors, and that will be part of the statement that will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Many hospitals in Scotland already operate a limited list over the whole range of drugs.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Stirling the local health council, using funds provided by his Department, is putting leaflets through letter boxes and organising public meetings telling elderly people that they will not be able to get their drugs because they will have to pay for them in future, when the health council does not even know what the list will contain and when the position has been clearly explained? Will my hon. Friend look into the matter and take it up with the health council, which is supposed to be there to serve the community, not to indulge in political propaganda?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is irresponsible of the health council to do that sort of thing. We have made it clear all along that the drugs that will remain prescribable under the NHS will meet all the clinical needs of patients.

Mr. Johnston: Will the Minister explain to me and the many doctors and constituents who have written to me — not necessarily those who are opposed to generic prescribing—why, in drawing up the original list, he apparently took no medical advice? Was this not both insensitive and possibly arrogant?

Mr. MacKay: The process of consultation lasted from the middle of November to the end of January. As I have explained my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up a committee of very experienced medical people. I have been taking the advice of my medical officials, and we have been taking into consideration the representations of doctors. I thought that that was the proper way to consult.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend note the hyprocisy of the Opposition, who are anxious that the drug companies should not cream off huge profits and that doctors should dispense properly for their patients?

Mr. MacKay: The Opposition's hyprocisy extends even further than that. As I understand it, they approve of generic prescribing, which is opposed by the drugs industry and the BMA.

Mr. O' Neill: Is the Minister aware that the Greenfield report, which inspired the so-called banned list, to use the hon. Gentleman's expression, has been around for some considerable time? The Government's ham-fisted approach caused an inadequate list to be produced in the first instance, and they are now having to scurry back and forth between doctors and pharmaceutical companies to secure their agreement before the list can be implemented. That is the scandal and that is what is causing great anxiety among our constituents.

Mr. MacKay: When the hon. Gentleman sees the final list he will recognise — I have said this three or four times — that it will meet clinical needs. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the Greenfield report. We have been discussing ways to reduce the drugs bill for some time. The Government decided that it was time to stop the discussions and to make concrete suggestions.

Mr. McQuarrie: I wish to press my hon. Friend on his meeting with the BMA. Did he discuss with the BMA the serious situation that will arise in rural areas where general practitioners prescribe and dispense? Will he bear in mind that those doctors should be entitled to consider brand names rather than to implement the Government's proposals for generic medicines?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend ensure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services bears in mind the problems that will be faced in rural areas of Scotland, which are inhabited mainly by the elderly?

Mr. MacKay: I think that I have already replied to my hon. Friend's question in answer to a previous question. I can confirm that I discussed the matter with the BMA. A fair number of doctors have made their position clear to me in the course of making their representations. The role of dispensing doctors is one of the matters that is now under consideration.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The Minister should not get too excited about trying to defend the indefensible. Does he realise that this is another step on the slippery slope down which the Government are leading the Health Service? Will he give a guarantee that the elderly and the poorer people who will be affected by the list which he has published will not suffer when the final list is put forward by the Government?

Mr. MacKay: I have already given that guarantee, and I am happy to give it again. We are taking the best advice possible to ensure that the list as it emerges, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services makes his statement, will be sufficient to meet all the clinical needs of patients.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall raise my point of order at the end of Question time.

Later—

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On earlier occasions you have explained to me how you group


oral questions for the purpose of calling hon. Members to ask supplementary questions. I am sure that you will have noticed that today there were five questions—all asked by Opposition Members — on the proposals of the Government in relation to prescription charges, mine being one of them. The other four hon. Members were called to ask their supplementary questions; you called at least four hon. Members from the Government Benches, none of whom had a question down on the subject; and you called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches to ask supplementary questions, although neither of them had a question down on the subject. I was the only one in that list who was not called. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I want to know whether this is a new principle of victimisation of poor souls such as me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) absolutely that there was no question of victimisation. I had regard to the fact that I called him on exactly the same question yesterday, when questions were down to the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I thought it only fair to give other hon. Members a chance today.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Later—

Mr. Hamilton: Further to your original ruling, Mr. Speaker. You said that you did not call me because I had asked a question on this matter yesterday, presumably the Secretary of State for Social Services. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Health Service in Scotland is separate from the Health Service in England. It is well known that, at the moment, the Scottish Minister is in violent conflict on this very matter with the Secretary of State for Social Services. You should not have presumed, as you did, Mr. Speaker, that the question I asked yesterday was the same question I was going to put to the Scottish Minister today.

Mr. Speaker: I try to be as fair as possible. I hope that when the hon. Member studies the Order Paper tomorrow he will note that, of those hon. Members who tabled questions that were not reached, no fewer than 12 were called today. I am sorry that the hon. Member was not among those hon. Members who were called. If he had risen on another question, I would have tried to get him in.
Following is the information: 
Limited list of drugs organisations which made representations up to 31 January 1985

The British Medical Association
The British Medical Association, Scottish Council
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (Scottish Department)
Pharmaceutical General Council (Scotland)
The British Dental Association
Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow
Borders Health Board
Highland Health Board
British Medical Association (Wigtown Division)
British Medical Association (Ayrshire and Arran Division)
Local Dental Committee of Greater Glasgow Health Board
Grampian Local Medical Committee
Borders Local Medical Committee

Fife Local Medical Committee
Shetland Local Medical Committee
Highland Area Local Medical Committee
Hospital Paediatric Services Advisory Group
Glasgow Terminal Care Group
Keith Patient Participation Group
Scottish Spina Bifida Association
Association of Scottish Health Councils
City of Aberdeen Local Health Council
Argyll and Bute Local Health Council
Edinburgh Local Health Council
North East Fife Local Health Council
South Ayrshire Local Health Council
Kincardine and Deeside Local Health Council
West Fife Local Health Council
Greater Glasgow East Local Health Council
Orkney Local Health Council
City of Edinburgh District Council
Aithsting and Standsting Community Council
Whalsay and Skerries Community Council
Pollock Community Council
Tingwall, Whiteness and Weisdale Community Council
Burra and Trondra Community Council
Lerwick Community Council
Kilmeny Community Council
Iona Community Council
Rannoch and Tummel Community Council
Mull Community Council
Baillieston Community Council
Stepps and District Community Council
Northmavine Community Council
Torridon and Kinlochewe Community Council
East Sutherland Council of Social Service
Harris Council of Social Service
Guild of Hospital Pharmacists
Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff
National and Local Government Officers Association (Kyle and Carrick District Branch)
Paisley and District Trades Council
Orkney Labour Party Executive
Ayr Constituency Labour Party
Old Pollock Tenants Association
Age Concern Scotland
National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Association
Pennyghael Community Association
Wester Hailes Good Neighbourhood Scheme for Information and Social Help
Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Ltd.

Total 60 organisations.

Job Creation

Mr. Malone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created in Scotland in the past 12 months.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): During 1984 nearly 15,000 new jobs were associated with offers of selective financial assistance for projects in Scotland. In net terms there was an overall increase in employees in employment of 14,000 in the year to September 1984.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that many of those jobs were created in oil-related industries? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition has made the clear statement that, if he is put into office, he will implement a policy of controlling oil


depletion in the North sea? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that policy were to be implemented it would drive investment from the North sea and jobs from Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point in relation to what the Leader of the Opposition said. I confirm that exploration in the North sea continues at record levels. As my hon. Friend will be aware, last week plans were approved for the development of Shell-Esso's Tern field, which it is estimated will create 3,000 new jobs. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have today authorised the Scottish Development Agency to invest more than £500,000 in a new oil rig repair base at Dales Voe near Lerwick, which will widen the capability of Scottish firms in that area and provide 150 new jobs.

Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that in the Invergordon to Dingwall travel-to-work area in my constituency, adult male unemployment is at present 25 per cent.? On Monday, this week I visited a distillery in Alness, which is due to close as a result of a decision by the Distillers Company. Incidentally, that effects to an even greater extent the constituency of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock). Will the Minister use the opportunity before the Budget to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to introduce further tax advantages or to reduce the tax burden on the distillery and whisky industry to try to improve the climate in which so many jobs are being lost?

Mr. Stewart: No doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will read the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman of our commitment to the rural areas. We recently announced a new initiative —the programme for rural initiatives and developments — through the Scottish Development Agency. In the areas that serve the oil industry there will be substantial and increasing opportunities for employment if companies can provide competitive services.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that when I fought the constituency represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1959, the jobless total in Scotland was 70,000? During that election campaign Lord Stockton chastised the STUC for not coming to see him quickly enough, because he believed that the jobless total was too high. As the jobless total in Scotland is now more than 300,000, what is the message from the Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the STUC about unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland doubled under the Labour Government. Unemployment is a difficult problem, and the Government's policies are designed to create a competitive economy to provide real and lasting jobs. My message to the STUC is that it should take fully into account the need for British companies to be competitive if they are to expand and provide new jobs.

Mr. Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the creation of new jobs. Will he ensure that those concerned with this crucial activity are not discouraged by the self-inflicted wounds created by striking miners, which have had especially disastrous consequences in Fife?

Mr. Stewart: The whole House will be aware of the serious position that has arisen in Fife as a result of the strike. It is important that Scotland does not inflict such

wounds on itself. However, there are several encouraging signs, including the improved performance of manufacturing industry. During the first half of 1984 manufacturing output was 5 per cent. above the level a year earlier.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that, very sadly, he is sounding more and more like one of his press handouts? Is it not insufferable complacency for the Minister to appear at the Dispatch Box and claim that his Government's policy has been a success? Will he accept that more than 160,000 manufacturing jobs have gone since 1979, that the index of industrial production is about 11 per cent. below what it was in 1979 and that unemployment is at a record level, with 360,000 people in the dole queues? Surely the Minister ought to do a great deal more and look at the reality of the crisis in Scotland—for example, at the appalling potential job losses that are being faced at the BREL works in Springburn?

Mr. Stewart: Nobody seeks to deny that there is a serious unemployment problem, but the Government's policies are designed to create the type of economy that will provide employment in the long term. I am very surprised that in his list of the alleged problems facing the Scottish economy the hon. Gentleman did not mention the miners' strike and the damage that it is doing to the coal industry and to the coalmining communities.

Mr. Steel: Is it not the case that during the last 12 months the number of job losses has exceeded the number of new jobs, as a result of which unemployment in Scotland has increased by 10,000?

Mr. Stewart: The total labour force is rising, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware. He will also be aware that in the service sector employment increased by 23,000 jobs in the year to September 1984. I am sure he will agree that that is very encouraging.

Natural Woodland

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to safeguard Britain's remaining natural woodland.

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends meeting representatives of the Forestry Commission to discuss the consultative document, "Broadleaves in Britain".

Mr. John MacKay: The Forestry Commission makes a presumption against the clearance of woodland for conversion to agriculture or, in the case of broadleaves, to coniferous woodland.
The commission is considering the responses to its consultative paper "Broadleaves in Britain," and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on broadleaved woodland policy before the summer recess.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister accept that the decline in Britain's natural woodlands is now so serious as to deserve urgent consideration and greater attention to management agreements and planning control? While I am reluctant to intervene in Scottish Questions, may I ask the Minister whether, as an alternative, he will soon convene a meeting of farming, forestry and conservation interests so that they can reach agreement on sensible policies upon which British woodland policy can be based?

Mr. MacKay: As the hon. Member perhaps realises, the Forestry Commission is engaged upon discussions with many of the bodies mentioned by him and with other bodies. A seminar is to be held later in the year. Once these consultations are over, the Forestry Commission will come to my right hon. Friend, who will look carefully into these matters.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that there has to be a consensus between all the parties that are interested in conservation? If that is the case, will he seek a meeting with the Forestry Commission to explain to it that, having met representatives of the landowning community and of the agriculture and timber-producing industries, it would now be proper for it to have discussions with those bodies which represent conservation interests before the seminar to which he has referred is held? Does he accept that it would be quite inappropriate for him merely to present those conservation bodies with a fait accompli?

Mr. MacKay: In addition to all the bodies that are directly interested in timber planting and timber growing, the Forestry Commission, as the forestry authority for Great Britain, is in close contact with the various conservation groups, foremost among which is the Nature Conservancy Council, on this important matter of preserving ancient broadleaved woodlands and attempting to increase the acreage of broadleaved woodland in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Soames: Knowing my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, when he next meets the Forestry Commission may I ask him to ensure that it is aware of the serious river pollution that is occurring as a result of the drainage from newly planted forestry? Will he press the Forestry Commission to continue its researches?

Mr. MacKay: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says and I shall certainly draw that to the attention of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Kirkwood: In anticipation of the seminar and statement that the Minister has announced this afternoon, will he give us an assurance that in the interim there will be no clearing of ancient forests for agricultural purposes? In the course of his consideration of the issue, will he review the important practice of the Forestry Commission of selling off prime tracts of forest in Scotland to anonymous owners for undisclosed prices?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as I said in my original answer, the Forestry Commission looks carefully at any proposal to fell broadleaved woodland either for planting coniferous trees or for agriculture) purposes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the possibility of tightening up the regulations is being considered by the Forestry Commission in the context of its current review.

International Youth Year

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will have discussions with the representatives of the United Nations Association and the City of Edinburgh district council, co-partners in the project, on funding of the International Youth Year Edinburgh Gathering, 9 to 16 June.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Financial support for the Gathering has been promised from both the Scottish

Tourist Board and the Scottish Sports Council. After discussion between my officials and the interested parties it is my view that these are the appropriate channels for assistance.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend encourage a substantial level of funding through those and other channels, bearing in mind that during the United Nations International Youth Year the Edinburgh Gathering will be the most significant project not only in Scotland but in Britain?

Mr. Stewart: I accept the role of the Edinburgh Gathering within the general campaign for the International Youth Year. Backed by an imaginative and well-planned publicity campaign it could be of considerable benefit in attracting tourists to Edinburgh and Scotland. In recognising that, the Scottish Tourist Board has promised financial support for the event to the extent that it will contribute up to 25 per cent. of the publicity costs incurred, subject to a maximum of £9,000.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that the best help that the Government could give the City of Edinburgh on this project and others such as the Festival would be to call off the ridiculous proposals that they have for cutting grants, thus destroying the ability of local authorities to carry out what their constituents want them to carry out?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. The Government support the International Youth Year by grant-aiding the co-ordinating committee in Scotland and the co-ordinating committees in other countries. The Scottish co-ordinating committee, consisting mainly of young people, is doing a good job and the hon. Gentleman would be better off encouraging and praising it rather than making those silly partisan points.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress being made with the sale of council houses in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Yes. Since 1979 over 62,000 tenants have bought their houses. Binding contracts of sale have been concluded in a further 4,000 cases, and there are approximately another 7,000 applications at an earlier point in the pipeline.

Mr. Knox: What percentage of council house stock in Scotland has been sold to sitting tenants? If that figure is still significantly below that in England, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to increase the sale of council houses in Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: The percentage figure now sold is about 4·6 per cent. of the council stock in Scotland, rather larger than the last time my hon. Friend asked me the same question last July, when I told him that it was about 3·6 per cent. There has obviously been an improvement, but I must concede that we are somewhat behind the comparable figures for England, and it is for that reason that I keep trying to persuade councils of the benefits of selling council houses—such as the way in which they can spend their receipts—to encourage them to release council houses as quickly as they can.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If the policy of selling houses with substantial discounts is such a success, will the Minister tell the House why this has not been extended to the private rented sector?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member has asked that question before, and he will get precisely the same answer. We are dealing in this case with housing that has been provided by public money. I fail to understand the pathological hatred shown by the Opposition towards giving people who are living in council houses the right to own their own homes. We believe that that right is a good one, and we hope that they will exercise it.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the low rate of sales that has so far been achieved? Does he agree that, if we can persuade more people in Scotland to own their own homes by buying council houses, we shall improve their quality of life and increase the mobility of labour, which will be a factor in the future prosperity of Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: I agree totally with what my hon. Friend has said. The applications are running at about 1,800 a month. I would like to see this figure increased, and I shall do everything that I can to persuade people of the benefits of buying their homes.

Tourism

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present administrative and financial arrangements for marketing and for developing tourism in Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that he will give careful consideration to any recommendations that may in due course be made by the Select Committee for Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Kirkwood: May I refer the Minister, in addition to the obviously important evidence that will come from the Select Committee, to the important report that was published by the Fraser of Allander Institute last November on tourism and public policy in Scotland, which said that there was an urgent need for a clear statement of Government policy on tourism, including a need for an urgent degree of co-ordination of art, heritage and tourism, and an equally urgent need for Government activity in the classification of the marketing and development rules of the Scottish Development Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency?

Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman talks to the tourist industry in Scotland, I think he will find that not all of it agrees with the Fraser of Allander report that he mentioned. I believe that the tourist industry is vitally important for Scotland, and we are convinced that the roles of the Scottish Tourist Board and of the Highlands and Islands Development Board are vital to the future prosperity of the industry. We shall be looking with interest at the findings of the Select Committee on the subject of the interface between these two bodies.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says that tourism is so important. Why, then, is he insisting that local authorities cut back dramatically on their leisure expenditure, which includes museums, sports facilities and leisure recreation

of all types and the arts, which play a vital part in attracting tourists to Scotland and ensuring that Scottish holiday-makers are properly entertained?

Mr. MacKay: There is another side to the coin of local authority expenditure if expenditure and rates are not kept under control. The tourist industry and especially small hotels, boarding houses and the like are damaged by the increase in rates. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the Government on the considerable amount of money that we have put into the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board since the last election, almost doubling what was spent in the last year of the Labour Government.

Mr. Fairbairn: May I remind my hon. Friend that tomorrow is St. Valentine's Day? As his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said, the tourist season will soon start in Scotland. Can the Scottish Development Department erect the signposts in time for the tourist season? If my hon. Friend wants some good advice about how to promote tourism in Scotland, may I suggest that he reads the Scottish Field next month for an excellent article on the subject, which I have written?

Mr. MacKay: We all look forward to the article with bated breath. I am sure that my hon. Friend who has responsibility for home affairs and the environment has heard my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about signposts.

Mr. Craigen: When will the Government wake up to the economic potential of the £1 billion Scottish tourist industry? With regard to the Minister's reference to rates for hotels and boarding houses, has the Scottish Office made any assessment of the impact of revaluation on the tourist industry in Scotland?

Mr. Mackay: We have of course considered the question of revaluation across the board. My right hon. and hon. Friends have both answered questions on this matter. The total rate burden levied by local authorities is important to the tourist industry. While I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of tourism, I think that local authorities have to bear in mind the burden that they put on the local economy.

Highlands and Islands (Land Use)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that land in the Highlands and Islands is utilised to the advantage of the local economy.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The policies pursued and assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Forestry Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are designed to improve the utilisation of land in the Highlands and Islands and to benefit the local economies.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister scrap the Government's proposals to cut the grants under the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme, and will he agree to meet forthwith the chairman of the Crofters Union steering group and withdraw the abrupt refusal to consult about the Government's damaging proposal?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will put down detailed questions about the Crofters Commission, we shall answer them.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study his Department's report on the Crofters Commission? Is it not high time that we wound up that body and allowed the more efficient use of resources, which the commission is preventing?

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister clearly misheard my question. He referred to the Crofters Commission. I asked him about the cut in the grants under the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether that was so, but we must not have repeats in Question Time. I call Dr. Godman.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) asked a question that has not been answered.

Mr. Speaker: That is what happens when hon. Members intervene between a question and an answer.

Mr. Stewart: The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is that I have noted his comments, but that we have no plans to wind up the Crofters Commission.

Dr. Godman: Where there is wasteful under-use of land, is not there a case for intervention to ensure the more rational use of that land by, say, tenant farmers?

Mr. Stewart: The Highlands and Islands Development Board has considerable powers to achieve its land use objectives, particularly through advice and offers of financial assistance. Between 1974 and 1983, a total of £26–8 million was provided for the promotion of land development of various kinds in the Highlands and Islands. That created 1,500 jobs and retained 800. I do not believe that extra powers are necessary.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with the bodies responsible for the negotiation of teachers' salaries and conditions of employment.

Mr. Younger: In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on 31 January, at column 272, I reported the outcome of my meeting on 28 January with both sides of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. At a subsequent meeting of that body on 7 February the management side outlined proposals for taking forward a review within the SJNC(SE) framework. I understand that the teachers' side is to respond to that initiative at a further meeting of the SJNC(SE) on 15 February.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that if the SJNC decided that it was within its terms of reference to establish an independent body to review teachers' salaries he would not block that development and would still have on the table his responsibility to provide the necessary funds to meet any obligations arising from the deliberations and decisions that finally emanate from the SJNC?

Mr. Younger: I think that I have already answered that question, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I say again that it is up to the SJNC to decide how it wishes to carry out

its tasks. I have already said that if it produces a package of pay and conditions that I consider to be attractive I shall do my best to find funds to help to implement it.

Mr. Maxton: Why does the Secretary of State continue to give the impression that he and the management side of the SJNC ar totally separate and independent beings? His representatives are members of the management side, and one of the underlying problems of teachers is that they do not believe that the management side can operate independently of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Younger: I should have thought that a notable feature of the whole business was that the management side had been obviously independent. For instance, it took the line that it, too, was in favour of an independent pay review, as did the teachers, although it took a different line from the teachers in that it thought it should be a review of pay and conditions. I do not see any question of the management side being other than independent of the other parts of the body. The essential thing for everyone to understand is that the SJNC was set up for the precise purpose of considering and dealing with the pay and conditions of teachers. I suggest that this is the body through which this damaging dispute should be resolved.

Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of people inside and outside the House are concerned that recrimination about the past few months would be unfortunate? It would be better for the teachers to explore fully within the SJNC the kinds of opportunities to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier. Rather than disrupt now, it would be better to explore the opportunities which my right hon. Friend indicated are available within the SJNC.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that there is a clear way of proceeding and having all the teachers' worries, grievances, and so on properly looked into by the body set up precisely for that purpose. With that in mind, I suggest that all concerned should reflect carefully on whether it is right to disrupt children's educational prospects when there is a good way of resolving the difficulties without doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Jury Vetting

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is his policy on jury vetting in Scotland in cases relating to section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): The general policy of the Crown in Scotland with regard to jury vetting was explained by the previous Lord Advocate in 1979 and has not changed. The Crown does not screen persons cited for jury service. There have been no recent cases in which all or part of the proceedings needed to be held in camera, but for any such case in the future my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate reserves his position so far as the making of inquiries consistent with the observations of the High Court in M v. Her Majesty's Advocate in 1974 is concerned.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Solicitor-General set out in the Library the criteria of selection?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A detailed explanation is given in the case to which I referred, which


sets out the special cause where a challenge can be made to individual jurors. I shall make that available to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall make sure that it is in the Library.

Mr. Dewar: I hear the careful caveat that the Solicitor-General has made. May I take it from his reply that he shares my implacable resolve that jury vetting should not become a feature of the Scottish judicial system?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: What needs to be appreciated by the whole House is that were we have a jury operating in Scotland it operates in a different context from the jury that is to he found south of the border. There are significant differences. We have a different system of majority verdicts and a different size of ordinary criminal jury. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that screening or vetting is not an ordinary part of the way in which we conduct matters.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the reason why the Government were persuaded by argument to leave the rejection of three jurors without cause shown was so that the practice of jury vetting by a back door should never be introduced in Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, indeed, that is the situation. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) appreciated, there is only one small but general reservation that I have made on the whole matter.

Matrimonial Homes Act

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is satisfied with the operation of the Matrimonial Homes Act.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Government are aware of the criticisms made of the operation of the Act and are, as appropriate, taking steps to meet these criticisms, or ascertain how far they are justified, and to provide remedies by legislative and other means.

Mr. McKelvey: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. He will recall that during the progress of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill there was discussion of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1981 and Women's Aid indicated disquiet about variations in judgments in the appropriate sheriff courts. I look forward to the result of his investigation and to any action that can be taken to remedy the problem.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has commissioned research into the operation of the Act. It is expected that this will be available by the beginning of next year. If he has specific complaints about the operation of the Act and the involvement of the police or procurators fiscal in Scotland, I hope that he will make the details available to me.

Drugs Offences

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases of alleged drugs offences have been reported to the Crown Office or to procurators fiscal in 1985 to date.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In 1985 to date, 290 cases have been reported to procurators fiscal.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the Solicitor-General consider that the proposed change in the law to make fines available as the norm to the court in addition to prison sentences would be a useful deterrent, bearing in mind the alarming increase in the number of drug cases in Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point that he makes. I regret that the problem of trafficking in drugs remains very serious in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am glad to say that our success rate in prosecutions in the High Court has been good. I hope that the amendments that have been put down to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will provide an effective addition to the armoury of deterrents against those who believe that trafficking in drugs is a profitable way to carry on.

Mr. McQuarrie: Can my hon. and learned Friend tell the House how many of the drug offences in Scotland last year were committed by young persons under the age of 18?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot immediately answer my hon. Friend. I regret to say that that area of crime involves not only older people. There has been a significant and tragic increase in the number of those involved under the age of 20.

Armed Trespass

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions took place in 1984 for armed trespass.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Trespassing with firearms is an offence under section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968, and 51 prosecutions for contraventions of that section took place in 1984.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is a very high number? Can he break down that figure into urban and rural offences? Can he assure me that sufficient effort is made to prosecute those who are poaching both fish and wildfowl?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot give a breakdown into urban and rural offences, but I should think that most of the offences took place in a rural context. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, if those offences are pursued in the courts, that can sometimes involve very complex questions of civil law, which the courts have said are not always suitable for determination in criminal trials. However, I understand my hon. Friend's great concern about poaching.

Mr. Eadie: Based on the figures that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has given for prosecutions relating to armed trespass, what has the hon. and learned Gentleman to say about the alleged easy availability of weapons in Scotland? Will he investigate that matter and provide the House with information?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall be glad to provide the hon. Gentleman with what information I can. Under the Firearms Act 1968 and other statutory and common law offences, significant penalties can be imposed on those in possession of firearms or who use


them when they do not have a justifiable excuse for carrying them. The courts in Scotland have imposed heavy penalties when such offences have come before them.

Drugs Offences

Mr. Malone: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for drug-related offences have taken place in the Grampian region in the past 12 months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The figures available are for 1984, when 294 drug-related cases were reported for prosecution in the Grampian police area.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful for that reply. While it is a tribute to the ability of the Grampian police that they have been able to contain the overall problem within the Grampian region, does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that within those figures there is an increased number of offences for the use of hard drugs? Will he consistently bear that fact in mind when considering sentencing policy?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As my hon. Friend will recognise, sentences are a matter for the courts. However, it has been the established policy for the past two years of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that where there are prosecutions of those engaged in the trafficking of drugs—be they hard or soft drugs — they should ordinarily take place in the High Court. That ensures that the full range of penalties available in that court can be used. I hope that in future that will include the power to impose, as a norm, a fine as well as a sentence of imprisonment.

Dr. Godman: Can the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell us how many of those prosecuted for drug-related offences were registered drug addicts?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. The range of offences covers not only those found in possession of drugs, but those found in possession of them with the intention of supplying them to other people. In those circumstances, whether or not the accused is a drug addict is essentially immaterial. We are seeking to crack down on the idea that people can engage in trafficking, especially when it is for profit.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Dental Charges

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the costs of dental treatment provided under the National Health Service in Scotland was met by the charges paid by patients at the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding proportion in 1979.

Mr. John MacKay: The proportion was 24·6 per cent. in 1983–84 and 20·29 per cent. in 1979–80.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware of the great concern that is felt not only by the dental profession but by patients about the increased charges? Does he agree that dental care should continue to have an important place in Scotland?

Mr. MacKay: I am indeed most concerned to improve the quality of dental care in Scotland and the attention we pay to our teeth. About half the courses of treatment are provided free. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that while the number of dental treatments in 1978 in Scotland was 2·4 million, by 1983 it had risen to 2·75 million.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. My point concerns Question Time. You will have noticed that the Government have recently transferred overall responsibility for forestry policy from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Scottish Office. The Table Office has, therefore, been directing hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies to table their questions on United Kingdom forestry policy to the Scottish Office, and two of my hon. Friends have, rightly, done so today.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this administrative transfer from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Scottish Office could impose an intolerable strain on the time available for Scottish Office questions. Would it be possible—indeed, would it be in order—in view of the situation for a Scottish Office Minister to be present in the House during Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions to answer questions on United Kingdom forestry affairs?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that of the Scottish questions today, three were from hon. Members representing English constituencies and one was from an hon. Member representing a Welsh seat? While I entirely agree that they are within their rights according to the odd usages of this place, do you agree that representations should be made for Scottish questions to return to being answered one week in three instead of the current one week in four?

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has raised a real difficulty. If we find, as we monitor this matter—as we are in the early stages of this transfer, it will have to be monitored — that it inhibits the proper scrutiny of the abysmal mess that the Scottish Office is making of the Scottish economy and everything else, we shall want to return to the subject.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The number of questions in which English Members participate—I refer not just to the questions on forestry today — suggests that Scottish Question Time should be extended. Will you take account of suggestions recently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), that Scottish questions could usefully be added to some meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh? That might also serve to reduce the number of English Members participating in Scottish questions.

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it exactly the same point of order?

Mr. Forth: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Forth—an English Member.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider enjoining Scottish Members not to interfere in English Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: That illustrates the difficulty about this issue. It is not one for me. This is a legitimate matter, and it should be taken up through the usual channels.

Leader of the Opposition (Statement)

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is the big one.

Mr. Stanbrook: It will be.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled against my submission that certain words used by the Leader of the Opposition, calling into question the truthfulness of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, were out of order. You said:>
It is right that we do not impute dishonour to each other, but what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said was that he did not himself believe it. That is a different matter." —[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 188.]
Now that we have the advantage of reading in Hansard exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said, I respectfully submit that what he said was out of order. The Leader of the Opposition said:
The right hon. Lady says now, and she has said to me before, that she was not involved in the decision to prosecute. Frankly, I do not believe the right hon. Lady".
The Prime Minister said:
I was not involved in the decision to prosecute a particular person." — [Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 162.]
I ask you to consider that matter, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the precedents in "Erskine May", especially on page 432.
Several precedents are quoted. The most recent precedent involved the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). The words used by the hon. Member for Fife, Central were:
I doubt the word of the hon. Member for Edgbaston.
Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine was in the Chair as Deputy Speaker and it was reported that he said:
I find it difficult to distinguish between doubting someone's word and calling him a liar." — [Official Report, 15 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 1789–90.]
That is in "Erskine May" and is under the heading "Charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood". In view of these precedents, I respectfully suggest that what the Leader of the Opposition said about the Prime Minister's truthfulness yesterday was out of order. I ask you to consider the matter, Mr. Speaker, now or later as you wish, and to rule that, the Leader of the Opposition being out of order, he should withdraw.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you were present for all the proceedings and as a result of a point of order by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) you made a decision there and then which was apparently to the satisfaction of most hon. Members who were present, otherwise there would have been further points of order. The hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge that ruling, and that is a matter for him.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that one does not have to go as far back as the incident in 1980 because there are plenty of examples, if you care to look them up, in which many hon. Members have doubted the veracity of statements made by other hon. Members. That does not apply simply from the Labour side to the Conservative side; it happens the other way round as well. Perhaps you will reflect that the most glaring example

happened in July last year, when I asked whether it would be in order for somebody to say that the Prime Minister would not recognise the truth if it was sprayed on her eyeballs, and I got away with it.

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we can agree in part with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have our differences and on both sides of the House we are accustomed to harsh criticism, which is inherent in our tradition of free speech. I have sat in the House for 11 consecutive Parliaments. Only the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) has sat here longer. I cannot recollect in those 35 years an occurrence such as that which we witnessed yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition accused the Prime Minister of not telling the truth and then failed to substantiate the charge.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling, that what the right hon. Gentleman did—he may have done so unwittingly, and I hope that he did—cast a slur not merely upon my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but on every hon. Member, because it touched on the honour of every one of us. When we speak, from whatever side of the House, we may be mistaken, we may have been misled, we may not express ourselves clearly, but the assumption is that we are speaking in good faith, and that is the only basis on which the House can operate.
I would respectfully suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has only one course. He can put down a motion in which he apologises to my right hon. Friend, or he can table a motion which goes a long way to substantiate what he says, which would lead to a debate in this House or an appropriate committee of inquiry. The situation cannot be left where it is, because the right hon. Gentleman has pointed the finger at every hon. Member, and that would be intolerable.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr. Brian Mawinney: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In col. 1789 of Hansard of 15 May 1980, not only did the hon. Member for Fife, Central, (Mr. Hamilton) talk about doubting the word of my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, (Mrs. Knight), as referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), but he used exactly the same words as the Leader of the Opposition used yesterday. He said "I do not believe."
In col. 1790, I asked Mr. Deputy Speaker for a ruling about whether that was tantamount to calling my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston a liar. Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that it was tantamount to calling her a liar and he called upon the hon. Member for Fife, Central to withdraw. To his credit—although he said that he did not do it with full gracious heart—in col. 1792 the hon. Member for Fife, Central obeyed the Chair's injunction and withdrew the comment. Since the words on that occasion are identical to the words used yesterday, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear that similarity in mind.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Tell us about video nasties on the train, George.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to the point of order. Before you reconsider your ruling, Mr. Speaker—if you intend to reconsider it on the basis of submissions made—would


it help if I gave you a list of the occasions when the Prime Minister has not told the truth on this issue, starting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just what we want to avoid in a highly charged situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. I ask the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) not to use that phrase, because that is just the difficulty that we are trying to avoid—[Interruption.] Order. If hon. Members will allow the hon. Gentleman to hear me, I ask him not to use phrases of that kind, because that is just the kind of accusation that we are seeking to avoid.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. May I help you by giving you a list of a number of occasions upon which incorrect information was given by the Prime Minister on this matter, starting with her reply to Mrs. Diana Gould on the BBC programme "Nationwide"?

Mr. Robert Adley: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General corroborated on a separate occasion the information which he gave to the House. To my knowledge, neither the Leader of the Opposition nor any Opposition right hon. and hon. Members have impugned the honour of the Attorney-General, notwithstanding the fact that he confirmed what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said. My point of order relates to that of my hon. Friend and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Surely it is not acceptable to the House for one right hon. or hon. Member to make a clear allegation that another right hon. or hon. Member was not telling the truth, his justification for so doing merely being that he has decided of his own volition that he will not withdraw his comments unless and until he receives an explanation on a wholly different point, which clearly is a point of argument, and an argument which can never be proved.

Mr. Allen Adams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. given that in the past two or three days right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have accused each other of—shall we say—terminological inexactitude — [Interruption.] well, whatever—perhaps it would be appropriate for you on Monday to call my early-day motion, which would divide the House on the basic issue that we should, from our own ranks, establish a Select Committee with powers to call persons and papers to determine who has been telling the truth and who has not over the past two or three weeks. Is it not as simple as that?

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference has been made to me and my behaviour on a similar occasion. In all fairness to Conservative Members, they said that I graciously accepted the Chair's ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I invite them to do the same with your ruling of yesterday.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accepted your ruling yesterday, and that is how it stands — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are you?"] That is the usual reaction from public school louts. I should like to make you aware, Mr. Speaker, if I may, that we are aware of what is going on in the House today

—the media have informed the general public that the heavy gang on the Conservative Back Benches mean to do a great deal more of this. I thought that you should be made aware of that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member still being helpful?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my intervention will be helpful. Before you make any ruling on the issue that has been raised, will you take into consideration the political circumstances in which the question has been raised? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is it not clear that Conservative Members are now putting up a smokescreen to avoid the issue that two Ministers came to the House of Commons and deliberately misled the House of Commons, and that was upheld—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is an experienced Member, and he knows that the phrase "deliberately misled" is not a parliamentary expression. He must not use it.

Mr. Heffer: I shall leave out the word "deliberately", but they misled the House of Commons. The whole business by the Opposition is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are the Opposition."]—on the part of the opposition on that side of the House, to deflect attention from the real issue, which is that people are trying to get away from the decision that was made in the court, and that the Ministers involved should resign. That is the issue. The issue is not the attack on my right hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Norman Buchan.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that if you had called me earlier, you might have defused the whole matter. May I ask a simple question? Has the Secretary of State for Defence or one of his junior Ministers approached you for the opportunity to make the appropriate statement to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to say to the House in all seriousness that when this House chose me as its Speaker it expected me to be totally impartial and to do my duty, however uncomfortable and however difficult that may be, and yesterday I had to do that. It is not for me to get involved in any political discussions that are going on across the Chamber. I say to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that I did not know the full details of his point of order, but I, too, looked up the precedents. I must say to him that they are not similar. I do not intend to go into the exact reasons why that was, but yesterday I was watching very carefully, as the House would have expected me to, to ensure that no accusations of lying or any other unparliamentary words were used. It was not my judgment that the words which were used—"I do not believe it" or "I do not believe you"—were an unparliamentary expression. That is an expression which is used in the House almost daily. I ask the hon. Member for Orpington who raised that point of order to calculate carefully what he is seeking me to say about an expression of that kind. I stand by what I said yesterday.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has it not been the rule


of the House for more years than any of us can remember that on points of order the doctrine of the first occasion applies—that either one raises the point of order when the event happens, or one loses the right to do so? What one does not do is dig it over a day or more later when one had the occasion, if one chose to be present in the House at the time, to raise it then. Do not the events of today reinforce the wisdom of that rule of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I shall answer that at once, because the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is a constitutional expert; I think that the whole House accepts that. Of course, he is absolutely right. It is one of the rulings that I could have given today. Indeed, I was minded to do so, but since I knew that yesterday's exchanges were likely to be raised, I thought that I would put the issue in its proper perspective at once so that we do not have any more of it.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement denying charges that, during the Ponting trial, his office received information from councillor Lynne Oliver, a Labour councillor in Islington and a member of the Ponting jury?

Mr. Speaker: Of course I have not. I hope that the House will not seek to involve the Chair in what is after all a highly political matter. That is not my role.

BALLOT FOR NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 1 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Edward Leigh
Mr. Michael Mates
Mr. Barry Henderson.

Molesworth (Peace Chapel)

4 pm

Mr. William McKelvey: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat of imminent demolition of the peace chapel at Molesworth".
Subsequent to the unprecedented military operation involving 3,000 soldiers and police to evict 150 peace demonstators from the Molesworth cruise missile site, the Royal Engineers have erected a 6 ft high barbed wire fence around the perimeter of the site. This unprecedented Ministry of Defence and police paramilitary action, which has been universally condemned by the broad spectrum of the peace movement and by many religious leaders, resulted in the peace chapel becoming inaccessible to those who would wish to pray for world peace. It is now enclosed within the perimeters of the barbed wire fence.
I was alarmed to hear this afternoon that the chapel is threatened by demolition by bulldozing. It is a stone-built structure and it would have been completed with a permanent tiled roof in a few weeks' time. It stands as a symbol for all religious creeds whose members wish earnestly to pray for world peace. Regular religious services were being held at the chapel until it was incarcerated behind the barbed wire. The building of the chapel coincided with the sowing of wheat fields. This was a symbolic gesture and an attempt to send grain to the starving people of Ethiopia and other areas of Africa.
The chapel was built by public subscription. It cannot be described as consecrated because technically it stands on Ministry of Defence land, but it has been blessed by the Bishop of Huntingdon and in the minds of peace-loving people it would qualify as being consecrated. The fact that this modest chapel has such important symbolic significance is perhaps the very reason why the Secretary of State for Defence would wish to eradicate it from sight, but to do so would be a mistake. The House surely cannot allow this travesty to happen in the name of defending the country. If the Secretary of State cannot find it in his heart to allow the chapel to stand, surely the least that he can allow is for the chapel to be demolished stone by stone so that this place of worship can be rebuilt on another site.
I honestly and earnestly feel that this is a matter worthy of debate. Demolition is imminent and there will be no purpose in discussing the matter once the demolition by bulldozer has taken place. I ask you earnestly, Mr. Speaker, seriously to consider granting my application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the destruction of the chapel at Molesworth.
I have listened carefully to what he has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Employment of Young People

Mr. Cyril Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide more employment opportunities for young people.
I am not, of course, unaware that the cancerous evil of unemployment is present across the age spectrum. I am aware equally that it rots the soul of those in all age groups. It causes resentment, bitterness and despair across the age generations. Yet, in terms of the future society, to which we must address ourselves, it is surely at its most evil among young people. From November 1984 we have had about 364,000 who have never worked since leaving school. These disaffected jobless youngsters become disillusioned and often the knock-on effect is one of crime, drug abuse, vandalism and general apathy.
In my 12 years as a Member of this place I have never accused the party in government of deliberately creating unemployment. Mad though I believe other parties often are, I doubt very much whether they are that mad. However, I have often said in employment debates that criticism is justified of the Government's attitude to unemployment. I gather that that view is now shared by some Conservative Members.
I have long believed—I have said this previously in the House—that unemployment, especially among the young, is too serious a matter to be treated as a party political football. We all know that Bills that are introduced under the ten minutes rule stand little chance of becoming law. However, if my Bill were to provoke cross-party discussion and serious thought and discussion, that would be at least a step forward. Two of the proposals in the Bill are certainly matters for discussion and if the Bill were to proceed I should be willing to listen to argument upon them.
The first proposal is to appoint a Minister for youth with responsibilities for young people in the hands of his Department. There are those who will be sceptical of the idea, but I remind them that there used never to be a Minister with responsibilities for small companies. We now have such a Minister, thanks to the Liberal party. The idea has worked in that instance and it could work again if we had a Minister with responsibilities for youth.
The second proposal in the Bill is the establishment of an environmental corps. I envisage the corps giving training in skills that will be a training for life and living. I see the corps undertaking projects and initiatives that are presently beyond the reach of local or national Government. I remind the House that the environment includes the inner cities. I stress that recruitment to the corps would be utterly and absolutely voluntary. Part of its training would be residential and this could lead to a meaningful base training for thousands of young people.
The third and main proposal is a type of statutory apprenticeship scheme. The number of apprenticeships in manufacturing industry fell from 155,000 in 1979 to 99,000 in 1983. Many of the 99,000 apprenticeships have not been filled by school leavers. One of the major criticisms of the Government youth policy and youth

employment schemes is the application of the schemes and subsidies to 17-year-olds and not 16-year-olds. I speak with some experience as an employer.
My Bill would enable the Government to place a levy on employers employing more than 50 people who fail to take on a proper and agreed number of apprentices. We tend to think of apprenticeships as largely within the engineering industry, and I submit that that is the wrong approach. We need to have new ideas about apprenticeships, and wider visions.
In Western Germany there are thousands of apprenticeships in the hotel and catering industry, for example, but in Britain there are comparatively few. There are many similar examples in Western Germany and not in Britain. Statutory apprenticeships in Western Germany are the norm; almost 500,000 of them exist. About 50 per cent. of German youth complete a three-year apprenticeship. In Western Germany, the state and industry—industry includes trade unions as well as employers—consider such schemes to be a social responsibility. The state has taken power to implement a levy but it has never had to impose one, such has been the voluntary response of industry to that legislation. In Belgium, too, there is a scheme of statutory apprenticeships.
I employ apprentices in my small company, and I know the problems and the financial costs involved. Much of the Government money now being spent on what I would describe as tarting-up schemes, and much of the money being spent on paying people not to work, could be diverted to financing statutory apprenticeships, with the state bearing much of the cost, not as extra expenditure but as a better use of existing expenditure. There could also be tax incentives and rebates to industry to encourage companies to employ more apprentices. But should industry fail to respond, under my Bill the Government would have the power to impose a levy.
We need the will, leadership, drive, enthusiasm and determination—in short, we need the right attitude. My Bill is an attempt to start the ball rolling and to ensure that we have a trained labour force in the future and that, instead of putting youngsters into schemes for one year and then throwing them back on the dole, we give them meaningful and purposeful training during their adolescent years. That can be done, and it is being done in other European countries. If the will was there, it could be done, and I suggest that International Youth Year is not a bad time to start.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. David Penhaligon and Mr. James Wallace.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Mr. Cyril Smith accordingly presented a Bill to provide more employment opportunities for young people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 29 January]

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 5

MANNER OF VOTING AT PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Walker.
I wish to ask you a question about amendment No. 88, which is not included in the provisional selection of amendments. As you will recall, Mr. Walker, when we discussed clause 1, the Committee greatly extended the franchise and, by so doing, extended the postal vote, with the result that the provisions of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Ballot) Act 1872 are somewhat less effective in ensuring that tampering with ballot papers cannot take place. Amendment No. 88 was tabled to deal with that. There is no other provision in the Bill for that, and therefore no opportunity to discuss the matter, save in the most general way during the debate on clause stand part. Perhaps it would have been better to table a new clause instead of an amendment. If clause 7 is added to the Bill as it stands, without substantial amendment, it might be impossible to raise the issue during a debate on a new clause.
To ensure that there is some debate on the avoidance of tampering with postal votes, would you reconsider the provisional selection of amendments before we reach clause 7?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I considered carefully the amendments which I did and did not select. Amendment No. 88 is clearly outside the scope of the clause. I did not select the amendment, and I cannot contemplate a debate on clause stand part. The hon. Gentleman will have to consider whether it is more appropriate to table a new clause, and I shall consider that in the event of it being tabled. But I repeat that, having considered the amendment carefully, I decided that it was outside the scope of the clause.

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
'(5A) If he is entitled as an elector to an absent vote at the election because he cannot reasonably be expected to go in person to the polling station allotted to him under the appropriate rules by reason of blindness or other physical incapacity, he may vote in person at any polling station in the constituency or, as the case may be, electoral area.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
New clause 13 — Access for disabled to polling stations—
'After paragraph (d) of section 18(2) of the principal Act the following words shall be inserted as paragraph (e)—
(e) at each polling station, in the means of access both to and within the premises and in the parking facilities to

be available (if any), provision shall be made, in so far as it is in the circumstances both reasonable and practicable, for the needs of electors who are disabled.
and the same words shall be inserted as paragraph (e) of section 18(3) and as section 31(5) of the said Act.'.
New clause 33— Proxy vote for disabled—
'Where a person becomes unable to attend the polling station in person because of physical disability arising after the date prescribed for him to apply to the registration officer to vote by post or proxy under the provisions of section 7, a ballot paper shall be issued to his proxy by the presiding officer at the polling station to which he would have attended but for the physical disability on presentation of a prescribed certificate issued by a medical practitioner attending the person provided:

(a) that the certificate is signed by the medical practitioner and certifies that the person concerned will be unable to attend in person because of a physical disability arising since the last day for the receipt of applications for a postal or proxy vote under section 7,
(b) that the person concerned completed the certificate by appointing as proxy a person qualified by section 8 and
(c) that the proxy appointed completes the certificate by saying that he is qualified to be the proxy under section 8.'.

Mr. Hannam: The amendment and the new clauses seek to improve voting opportunities for the disabled. I warmly welcome the extension of postal or proxy votes to all local government elections in Great Britain, including elections to parish and community councils in England and Wales.
The lack of availability of postal or proxy votes until now has meant that many disabled people have been disfranchised at local elections, and we must all be pleased that the Bill amends that position. However, when we consider the number of disabled people who apply for postal or proxy votes, we must ask why they have to apply for such votes. It is not necessarily on grounds of ill health or inability to get out of their houses and go to the polling stations, but often because the polling station is inaccessible to them. It is ironic that a disabled person applying for an absent vote must produce a doctor's certificate confirming that he or she is disabled, when the real reason for applying for an absent vote is not that he or she is too disabled but that the polling station is inaccessible. That applies not only to people in wheelchairs, but to the many people who have severe walking difficulties, including the elderly, and those who find it difficult to walk up steep steps or any steps at all. I am sure the Committee will agree that everyone, from the most severely disabled to the most athletic, should have the same right of access to polling stations in order to cast their votes in an election.
The use of the postal or proxy vote must be seen as a second-rate alternative to a vote in person, and we should do all that we can to ensure that polling stations are accessible to all. Amendment No. 32 seeks to build on a precedent already established in the Bill—that a person working in connection with the election, but in another part of the electoral area, may vote at any polling station within that electoral area. The amendment proposes that a disabled person should also be able to vote at a polling station other than that normally allocated to him—not because he especially wants to, but because many polling stations are inaccessible.
This is an interim measure pending the time when all polling stations will be fully accessible to disabled and blind people. I understand from questions and answers in Hansard that 50 per cent. grants are available from central


funds to provide ramps to polling stations. I had not heard of that scheme before, and it would be most helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would give further details of it. However, I do not believe that it is working effectively enough to act as a substitute for my amendment. Portable ramps have a limited use, in that they cannot accommodate the great range of access requirements. Many portable ramps can accommodate only one or two steps and cannot solve the problem of a flight of steps. I believe that the take-up of this scheme is extremely low, and I do not know of any local authority that has taken advantage of it. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give me some idea of the number of polling stations whose accessibility has been improved under the scheme.
A further drawback of the scheme is that it does not accommodate the wide range of disabilities. For example, for many elderly people who have walking difficulties, it is most important to have a good handrail. Such needs are not accounted for under the scheme. That is probably the major access need.
For those reasons, the 50 per cent. grant scheme cannot be relied upon to provide the accessibility to polling stations that is needed. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be accepted. If it is, I should have thought that the principle underlying the current scheme could be extended to cover permanent adaptations that are made to polling stations in order to improve accessibility. Such expenditure would benefit people not only once every few years when an election is held. As I have said in many previous debates upon different legislative measures, the great majority of polling stations are to be found in public buildings. Therefore, improved accessibility would benefit all local residents throughout all the days and months of the year.
New clause 13 deals directly with accessibility to polling stations and inserts into the 1983 Act an additional requirement that, when district councils and London boroughs review polling stations and places, they will ensure that, as far as is reasonable and practicable, parking and access are provided for disabled people. In Scotland, that duty lies with the returning officer. In both instances, that duty will relate to both parliamentary and local elections.
The wording of the new clause is taken from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. If the spirit of that Act had been implemented by local authorities, many of the buildings that are used as polling stations would already be accessible to disabled people. Sadly, not nearly enough local authorities have made their public buildings accessible to local people. The picture across the whole country is extremely patchy. Unless such a clause as the one that I have moved is inserted in the Bill, this situation will unfortunately continue. The new clause will not place an onerous burden upon anybody. The result will be that disabled people who are not ill but who otherwise would have to obtain medical certificates will not need to do so.
I have made my final point again and again when putting forward proposals to improve the facilities for the handicapped. Every improvement in the facilities for the handicapped also helps other sections of the community —the elderly, mothers with prams and those who are carrying shopping. A clear illustration of this is the Newcastle metro. A survey shows that the specially wide barriers that have been erected enable 56 people in wheelchairs, 27 blind and handicapped people and 100

people with prams and pushchairs to use that metro service each day. They would be unable to do so if those wider entrances had not been provided.
I hope that these worthwhile proposals will receive favourable consideration from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I have great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I am reminded of a campaign conducted in my constituency that was directed at preventing the elderly from having to walk long distances. The returning officer established a caravan on a small site which made it easier for people to get to the polling station. However, the concern I felt can be imagined when I say that numerous telephone calls followed me around the constituency on polling day asking me to go to this particular polling station, where I found that people in wheelchairs were in tears. The travelling problem had been overcome, but the access problem had been aggravated. The steps of the caravan were far too steep for some of the frail elderly who had difficulty, because of arthritis, in climbing the steps. Amendment No. 32 seeks to provide an alternative method. It is not unique. It would enable those people who feel that their polling station is inaccessible but who do not want a postal vote to vote in person. Some people, God bless them, still want to exercise their right to cast their vote at the polling station. They want to be like other people on polling day. That is very important.
The Minister could look kindly upon this amendment by providing that facilities for the disabled should be made available at accessible polling stations, which may be situated outside the wards in which they live. Returning officers already carry their voting rights elsewhere, so this is possible. The amendment would meet the needs of the disabled, most of whom would like to continue to go to polling stations for as long as they possibly can. It is not for this House to put barriers in their way.
There is a section in the Education Act 1981 that deals with the education of handicapped children. It provides that schools must be made accessible to all children. The improved accessibility which has resulted from the 1981 Act may be of value to the disabled who want to cast their vote personally. Substantial numbers of polling stations are based at schools.
As the hon. Member for Exeter said, when we took the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 through the House perhaps we should have been more positive and said that access to new public buildings should be made mandatory. The assumption is that access should be made available only for people in wheelchairs, but, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, everybody at some time or another has been pushed around in a pram. A mother is entitled to enter a polling station without the hassle of having to leave her baby behind.
All these factors have to be taken into account. Until we can provide relatively simple access to all polling stations which are not too far from the homes of the disabled, the ideas underlying amendment No. 32 ought to commend themselves to the Minister. If he cannot accept them as they stand, I ask him to do everything within his power to ensure that practical support is given to local authorities with difficulties to enable those who want to do so to exercise their right to vote, even though they are disabled, at a polling station.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am one of the signatories to new clause 13. I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) have said about the provision of easier access to polling stations. During the 1983 general election, two people in my constituency of Leicester, East found it impossible physically to go and vote. I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department only a few days ago to define a polling station. One has to remember that schools where the traditional polling station is to be found do not normally teach disabled children in wheelchairs. Another difficulty is that some polling stations are situated in outhouses at the back of the school. The polling station could be at the top of a massive flight of steps.
In June 1983, my two constituents experienced great difficulty in climbing very steep steps. One was in a wheelchair; the other had two sticks. I applaud the polling agent, who helped the person in the wheelchair to go into the polling station and vote. The person with the sticks could not get up the steps. I have no idea how she would have voted had she been able to get up those very steep steps. It might have increased my majority.
Severe problems are involved in getting disabled people to polling stations to cast their votes. We give disabled people lifts to and from the polling station, but they have difficulty in getting into and out of the car. It is important for the disabled to be able physically to come and vote rather than having to vote by post.
Leicester has a large disabled community and from speaking to them I know that the one thing that they want is to be treated the same as everyone else. It is up to all of us to co-operate with the Home Office in ensuring that they have the facilities to enable them to vote.
Once disabled people have got into the polling station there is the additional difficulty of voting secretly. Some cannot reach the ballot paper, some cannot fold it and some cannot reach to put it into the ballot box. Voting for the disabled must be completely reviewed as soon as possible.
4.30 pm
I support amendment No. 32 which will allow disabled people to go to any polling station in the electoral area. I do not know whether I would like to see one polling station for disabled people. I can see that it would have its attractions in a general election when the voter is voting within his constituency, but I can see a problem arising at a ward or district election when a person goes to a polling station other than that at which he is registered. However, that proposal would go some way to enabling disabled people to vote.
It is a great democratic right in Britain to be able to vote. I sincerely hope that disabled people will be allowed to vote whenever they wish to. I hope that all access points to newly designated polling stations will be wide enough and will have ramps. Disabled people should be able to vote proudly, without assistance. They should be able to go to vote freely, in secret and with pride. It is for that reason that I support amendment No. 32 and, in particular, new clause 13.

Dr. John Marek: I congratulate those hon. Members who have tabled amendment No. 32. I fully support the principle that it seeks to establish, although its wording means that it cannot be implemented.
It is not my understanding of the amendment that if a disabled elector goes to a polling station his vote must necessarily be totted up with the other votes there. I am sure that his vote could be transferred and counted in the ward where that elector resides.
Every hon. Member will have experience of electors who are greatly disadvantaged because of the way in which ward boundaries are drawn. I used to live in Aberystwyth. One village in that ward, Capel Seion, consisted of a long road in a rural area with perhaps only 200 electors. The ward boundary went down the middle of the road for about two or three miles. Electors on one side of the road lived in Llanbadarn-y-Creuddyn Upper and were able to vote in the village, while the electors on the other side of the road were in Llanbadarn-y-Creuddyn Lower and had to travel three or four miles to vote in a different valley with a greater centre of population. There were complaints in sparsely populated areas, where winter sometimes creates difficult conditions, yet the returning officer could not recommend that in that case an extra polling station should be installed. Therefore, there is a case for special facilities being made available for disabled people.
Amendment No. 32 would apply only to an elector who has an absent vote. I know of difficulties where certain electors are physically handicapped yet have found it difficult to get an absent vote. In some areas, a doctor's signature is required and the electoral registration officer has to be satisfied with that signature. In other areas the conditions are not so strict. If I could be satisfied that physically handicapped voters would usually get an absent vote indefinitely, easily and simply, without having to write letters or having to go to town halls or guild halls for forms which then have to be taken to the doctor, that would go a long way to meeting the amendment.
Hon. Members have said that handicapped voters want to do the same as ordinary people and that that can never be completely achieved by the amendment. If the Government cannot accept the amendment now, I hope that they will consider whether some administrative procedure could be instituted and introduce an amendment to that effect on Report. If a handicapped voter wanted to go to the polls and if there were an accessible polling station, surely the administrative procedures could be made available so that that vote could be transferred and counted in the appropriate district. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps I may pick up from where my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) left off. It is a well known fact that polling districts change their boundaries periodically. Polling stations move and, with the development of movement of population, people find themselves in different polling districts, wards and, periodically, constituencies, without physically having moved.
A good friend of mine, who is severely disabled, has always been a keen student of politics. For a long time he voted at a polling station close to where he lived which was readily accessible. For him, the exercise of voting in person was important. When his local authority moved the ward boundary, he was suddenly in a different polling district, the polling station was some considerable distance away and he was no longer physically able to go there. That is a disgrace. He had not moved house and the polling


station where he had gone was still some 50 to 70 yd away, but the boundary line now went between him and that polling station.
Bearing in mind that everyone is issued with a polling card with a name and polling number on it and every polling station to which I have ever been always seems to have a complete electoral register for the constituency or ward as a whole, it is ludicrous that my friend should not be able to take his polling card to the nearby polling station and exercise his democratic right.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on amendment No. 32. I agree entirely with what he has said. If the Government will not accept it, I hope that he will press it to a Division because it has considerable merit. In a modern electronic age, there is no reasonable excuse for not allowing that small number of persons the right to go to their nearest polling station.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can the hon. Gentleman help me? I am trying to envisage a polling station in which on a ward-by-ward basis a list of all electors is kept. If an elector from another area asked to exercise his right to vote at that polling station, would there not be difficulty for the officers administering the poll in verifying that person's identity to allow him to vote?

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If we take as an example the smallest number of electors involved in an election for a district or parish council, the number of wards involved may be as small as five, 10 or 15. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man for a number of voting slips for adjacent wards at the district level to be left at each polling station. Alternatively, why not allow the polling officer the right to make a ballot paper which would have to be kept separate and secure? We can all think of little difficulties, but let us consider the overall principle.
How many such cases are we considering? It is a remarkably small number. Is it beyond the wit of a returning officer in a constituency in a general election or in a district council election to allow disabled persons in the constituency or district to vote in the polling stations nearest to them?
A medical certificate grants to a disabled person the right to vote at a polling station other than his own. It would not be beyond the wit of man to include in the application form the address of the nearest polling station. That would allow the returning office for the constituency or district to know the number of applications and the polling stations to which those applications were going to be made. The officers at those polling stations would then have the appropriate ballot papers available. Such ballot papers, instead of being put into the box, could be sealed, placed in a separate box and delivered to the appropriate counting point.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I envisage even greater problems than I did earlier. Assuming that the disabled person lives in the constituency neighbouring the one in which he works, I foresee great problems in trying to rush his ballot paper back to the appropriate constituency. Secondly, and more important, if the polling station is in the same constituency, I am certain that this system will still work because it will not affect the general election result. However, I would have considerable worries about the polling officer having loose ballot papers in the polling

station. I seek the view of the hon. Gentleman on the situation in which the elector votes in one ward and lives in another, bearing in mind that wards sometimes have election results with majorities of only one or two.

Mr. Bermingham: As I failed to make myself clear the last time I went through the process, perhaps the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) will allow me to recite the simple fundamental point involved. At the time that the disabled person makes his application for the right to vote at a polling station other than his own, he should nominate the convenient polling station. If I may return to the example I cited earlier of my friend who is severely disabled and whose nearest appropriate polling station is 70 yd from his home, he would nominate that polling station in his application as the one at which he intended to vote. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's example of an elector working in a neighbouring constituency, that elector would nominate the polling station at which he intended to exercise his right to vote, and the nominated polling station would hold the appropriate polling slip or ballot form.

Mr. Hannam: I think that the hon. Gentleman has it right. The amendment seeks to apply the same rules to disabled persons as are now applied to those who perforce are working in an area away from the appropriate polling station, such as polling officers and policemen on duty. They are obliged to carry out the procedure that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. We are asking that the procedure applied in the registration of an absent vote be applied to the disabled.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because I think that he agrees with me. A simple procedure can be devised to enable disabled people to vote at the most convenient polling station. As I understand it, that is precisely what the amendment seeks. It is unnecessary to draft a complicated series of provisions in order to permit the disabled to vote.

Dr. Marek: The problem has been raised of a disabled voter who lives in one ward but votes in a different electoral area. Does my hon. Friend agree that that clouds the issue? It may well be that we would have to rule out that type of change for the time being. However, it should be possible to devise some administrative system within a constituency for a disabled voter to vote at a different polling station from the one that collects the votes of other voters in the ward. That would go a long way to solving the problem.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I think that on this occasion he may have clouded the issue slightly. I am endeavouring to keep matters simple. If, in the city of Sheffield, a police officer is stationed on duty in the Hallam constituency and he is entitled to vote in the Attercliffe constituency, he is treated as an absent voter, the necessary arrangements and nominations are made and no problem arises. Elections are neither won nor lost on that one vote, because the vote is transferred.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: They are.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Member for Leicester, East must not become obsessed with his own tiny majority, which seems to worry him.

Mr. David Winnick: And rightly so.

Mr. Bermingham: If the procedures which work well for persons engaged in the electoral process are applied to the disabled, the numbers involved will be small. The same care that is taken with the votes of police officers and others will be taken with the votes of disabled persons.
It does not seem too high a price to pay in a democracy for a disabled person to have the right to cast his vote where it is most convenient and for that vote to be counted in the ward, district or constituency in which he is normally resident and entitled to vote. The transfer of such votes in the counting period should not give rise to any great difficulty. I therefore strongly urge the Conunittee and the Government to accept the amendment.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for having missed his opening remarks.
I welcome the opportunity to debate a subject that must have affected every Member of Parliament at some time. All of us at the time of elections know of incidents in which disabled people have experienced difficulty with polling booths. My experience may be a little different from that of hon. Members who represent city areas.
My constituency is a rural area, with about 90 polling stations and only 60 or 70 electors in some areas. Only some of those stations are schools. Many are village halls or the vestries of chapels and churches and some are singularly unsuitable. At the last general election, one polling station was in the front room of a council house.
In such constituencies, problems arise and they must be taken into account in our consideration of the amendments. I support the objective of the amendments, though new clause 13 appeals to me more than does amendment No. 32, because it lays down a general objective that meets the wishes of most disabled people. They want to be able to vote in a normal, unselfconscious way. They do not want to be herded into different polling booths.
I have seen problems at first hand. In the town of Caernarfon, one polling station is in a reasonably accessible building, but it is on the second floor. People with heart complaints are upset because they cannot climb the stairs. That is a particularly prevalent problem in areas where a number of people suffer from pneumoconiosis. Such people have difficulty walking up hills and stairs.
We need to put pressure on the authorities that organise elections. It is not enough for them to show goodwill towards disabled people. There must be a requirement on them to take all "reasonable and practicable" steps. Those words appear in new clause 13 and, in another context, in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. They should be included in the Bill.
There should be legislative pressure on the organisers of elections to use the polling stations that are most advantageous for disabled people and, if there are problems at some of those stations, to take "reasonable and practicable" steps to put them right; obviously, they cannot spend thousands of pounds adapting a building that will be used only once every three years.
Polling stations must be made as accessible as possible to disabled people. I refer not only to disabled people in wheelchairs, but to those who have difficulty walking up hills and those with sight difficulties who may have problems if they have to walk down steep slopes. We need

to ensure that hand rails are provided and that access is through the most convenient door in a building and not, as is sometimes the case, through the least convenient door.
We want the Government to recognise the problem and to put responsibility on local authorities and ensure that they cannot wriggle out of it. At the same time, we must not impose such stringent conditions that it becomes impossible for those authorities to comply with that responsibility.

Mr. Forth: I hope that the Minister will tell us how he thinks that the administrative procedures recommended in the amendments would work in practice.
I agree that we must make every effort to ensure that people with disabilities of any kind can cast their vote in as near normal a way as possible — I favour easier access to normal polling stations as the best solution—but I get a little worried when we start complicating the administrative measures at individual polling stations to try to accommodate many possible methods of voting.
One of the great strengths of our present voting system and its procedures is their elegant simplicity. However good our motives, if we start to try to build in ever more procedures to cater for any number of possibilities, dangers of inaccuracies, the miscasting of votes, counting difficulties and so on will emerge. We should not cast aside such problems too lightly, because several hon. Members have majorities of fewer than 100 and some have majorities in single figures. It is possible for the miscasting of votes or the misplacing of ballot papers to cause serious electoral problems.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply will tell us how the administrative procedures would work, whether they would be viable and whether they would give rise to difficulties. Perhaps we would do better to provide easy access to polling stations rather than to over-complicate the important administrative and security procedures that are necessary at each polling station.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: At every election in which I have been involved, I have been impressed by the disabled people I have met while canvassing or on polling day and by their tremendous determination to vote, no matter what the difficulties. I am sure that my experience has been shared by other hon. Members, and it is a tribute to elderly people and those who find it difficult to move easily that they prefer to cast their vote in person than to exercise their right to a postal vote. It is a sign that they regard voting as a civic duty and is a lesson to all of us. I feel humble when I see the enormous dedication and determination of those people.
It is right that we should debate ways in which we can make it easier for some disabled people to vote—not that many such people want matters made easier for them. I should welcome the opportunity at the appropriate stage formally to move new clause 33, which is intended to cater for people who become disabled after the last date on which they were able to apply for a postal or proxy vote. If they are unable to go to a polling station in person, they should be able to vote by proxy, even if their disability occurs only just before polling day. That is a sensible provision which will ensure that no one is denied the right to vote through no fault of his own. New clause 13 also deserves support. If it is accepted, no disabled person who can get anywhere near a polling station will have any difficulty in casting his vote.
I think that all the polling stations in my constituency are at ground level and, apart from the two or three steps from a school playground into the building, which cause difficulty for disabled people, they do not present many problems.
However, even if most polling stations already conform to the requirements set out in the amendments, there will be a few that do not. Almost without exception, polling stations are situated in public buildings. If adequate access has to be provided at election time, it will almost certainly need to be provided for the other uses to which the building is put — for parents visiting schools, for example. Adapting buildings to improve access would not be a one-off operation for election time. It would be helpful for the rest of the time as well.
I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendment No. 32, but I have some reservations about it. There will be enormous difficulties for returning officers in dealing with people who are not on the voting list. Indeed, the person in charge at the polling station to which the disabled person would normally have gone may not know that his vote has been cast elsewhere. There is a danger that, for the most worthy of motives, we are making the position rather more difficult than is necessary. If we concentrated more on access, amendment No. 32 might be considered unnecessary even by those who have tabled it.
5 pm
It is unusual if the polling station to which an elector would normally go is not the one that is easiest for him to attend. Sometimes there are geographical quirks but those occasions are few and far between. Although I subscribe to the motives underlying amendment No. 32, I wonder whether it would be easy administratively to overcome the difficulties inherent in it. I express that reservation but I hope that new clause 13 will be passed, which would make amendment No. 32 unnecessary.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to a most useful debate. One cannot think of a more appropriate way of beginning our second day of deliberations on this important Bill than that we should consider the rights of the disabled in relation to voting and that there should be recognition, as there was from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), of the considerable improvements that the Bill already proposes. I am anxious to respond positively to the calls for further improvements.
My hon. Friend needs no commendation from me because his work for the disabled is well known. They have an eloquent spokesman in him and his contribution is appreciated by us all. We know too that this is a bipartisan matter. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who has to be elsewhere at the moment, also does sterling work for the disabled, as does the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter pointed out that considerable improvements are proposed in the Bill for those disabled who want to exercise an absent vote. At the moment, a disabled voter has a right to a permanent absent vote where he or she has been certified as being unable to vote in person. That right is to a postal vote. If the Bill is passed in its present form, there would also be a right to vote by proxy, so that increases the choice for the disabled. Anyone who wished to apply in future for a postal vote on the ground of disability would be able to apply in the

normal way for one election, without going through the special procedure, and would merely be required to fill in the form, including the reason why it would not be practicable to vote in person on the day, and obtain the appropriate counter signature. Of course, most disabled people would want a permanent postal vote. That requires certification, mainly but not exclusively, by a doctor. Those matters have properly been of concern to the all-party group.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is most interested in these matters and he has been with me on the Front Bench throughout these debates. Later I shall turn to his contribution four years ago when he was Minister of State at the Home Office. It has been pointed out in the debate that the help given by central Government to local authorities to improve facilities at polling stations has not been fully understood.
My right hon. and learned Friend has been in correspondence with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on the subject of certification. I welcome the opportunity to re-emphasise in Committee, as my right hon. and learned Friend did in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman, that when obtaining a certificate the disabled person is not required to pay a fee. General medical practitioners are not entitled to charge a fee for certifying an absent voting application on grounds of physical incapacity. They are prevented from doing so by paragraph 31 of the terms of service for doctors in schedule 1 to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1974. That is an important point to put on the record, because there have been proper inquiries about it in the past.
We have tried to ensure that any disabled person who wishes to have an absent vote may get one with the minimum of fuss and difficulty. The point has been made tellingly from all sides of the Committee that some disabled persons welcome the opportunity to be able to vote in person and regard that ability as one of the many challenges in life that they wish to surmount. It is a challenge that keeps up the morale and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said, the self-respect of the disabled.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his work for the disabled; his courage in facing up to disablement in his own family has won the admiration and respect of all of us. He referred to difficulties at polling stations. I think we have all had personal experience of this. In Putney, my constituency, our work for the disabled is perhaps the thing for which we are best known. In the constituency we have the headquarters of the limb manufacturing and fitting industry and also the Royal Hospital and Home for Incurables, one of the foremost institutions for the severely handicapped, where marvellous work is done and where modern technology has given a new dimension to life to those amongst the most severely disabled.
At the last general election, because of one of those unfortunate errors which sometimes happen and which reveal the importance of people being able to vote in person, a large number of postal vote applications for residents in the Royal Hospital went astray. So that they would not be deprived of their votes, a substantial operation was mounted to get them to the polling station. I know from my personal experience of that and from other encounters with disabled people that the ability to exercise their right to vote is of fundamental importance to them:


I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). That was a major operation, carried out successfully because of the happy chance that the polling station at which those people voted is a modern community centre which had been built with the disabled in mind. Although there were considerable difficulties in getting the severely handicapped people to the polling station, once they were there they were able to vote with relative ease. There are other polling stations in my constituency and in other constituencies where that would not have been possible. We have rightly been addressing our minds to the consideration of how we can make the position easier.

Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend has talked about the desirable accuracy of the electoral register. He mentioned the regrettable incident which occurred in his constituency at the last election. Similar incidents occurred in other constituencies. On page 7 the White Paper recommends a form of computerisation:
All authorities should be encouraged and if necessary assisted to install and to use modern technology to ensure the accuracy of their ERs.
I am sure that would meet with the approval of my hon. Friend. Therefore, would not he think it a good idea that a new clause to that effect should be debated later?

Mr. Mellor: That is a different point. The point I was making was not that they were not on the register but that their applications for postal votes had gone astray. It is part of our policy — most of this should be done administratively — to try to ensure that modern administrative equipment is used in one of the most difficult jobs that people in town halls have to do—ensuring that the register is properly compiled and accurately maintained. A great deal of work has been done, including seminars with electoral registration officers on, for instance, enabling more members of minority communities to be registered. We have been making a determined effort, following the report on the extent of inaccuracies in the register, to improve it. I hope we shall be seen to be successful.
Facilitating the exercise of the franchise in person by the disabled has considerably concerned my right hon. and learned Friend. When he was Minister of State at the Home Office for the first two years of the last Parliament, he had responsibility for the job that I now do—special responsibility for electoral law. As a result of his initiative, a circular was issued in 1981 advising returning officers that the Treasury would meet half the cost of portable ramps to help electors in wheelchairs enter polling stations. The other half of the cost would be paid by the local authority. That circular has not, perhaps, been as widely noted as it could have been, and I am glad to emphasise its existence today. That was a significant step in the right direction, although not all disabled people require wheelchairs. That initiative recognised the financial implications; we would like more local authorities to take up that provision, and perhaps hon. Members could remind their returning officers of it.
Without widening the debate unreasonably, I want to say that the Government have a general policy, which they have sought to follow with thoroughness, to improve access to buildings for the disabled. The Department of Health and Social Security has set up committees to

investigate in detail access to public buildings. In a trailblazing clause, the Secretary of State for the Environment inserted in a piece of legislation in 1970 a requirement that new buildings should be constructed with access for the disabled. That represented a material step forward.
The difficulty faced by returning officers is that they must have a polling station within each polling district. They must use the facilities available, many of which are schools built in an era before the interests of the disabled were paramount. To some extent, those buildings can be adapted for access by the use of ramps. Certainly returning officers should not gratuitously seek to make the plight of the disabled more difficult by, for example, placing a polling station on the second floor of a building when it would be just as simple to place it on the ground floor. If there is a choice of building, the building chosen should be the one that provides easiest access for the disabled, people with heart conditions and those who have difficulty in climbing stairs. We hope that exhortation alone will achieve that aim. Certainly the Government have been playing their part in that.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I feel that a case has been made today for a provision similar to that in new clause 13, which would require returning officers to have regard to the needs of disabled electors before designating a polling station. It is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter to say that I cannot accept his new clause lock, stock and barrel, because it has been prepared without the advice of parliamentary counsel. However, if I say that I am minded to bring forward an amendment on Report, I hope that he will feel that he has done a useful and worthwhile job in raising the issue today. In the face of such widespread agreement, it would be curmudgeonly of the Government not to do so, especially in view of the commitment to the issue that we have demonstrated over a number of years.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that polling often takes place at schools where the remainder of the school functions as normal? In one part of my constituency, a polling station was designated at the back of the school in an outbuilding. What would be my hon. Friend's guidance in such a case, as the school obviously continues to function throughout polling day? Can guidance be given to returning officers to place the polling station in a classroom at the front of the school so that the disabled do not have to try to reach the rear of the building to vote?

Mr. Mellor: The proposition embraced in new clause 13 would place returning officers under an obligation to make the best possible arrangements for disabled voters. It is then a matter for those concerned locally with the matter to make representations if they think that that rule is not being followed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Any instructions given to returning officers must filter down to the presiding officers, who often choose the sites in the buildings for booths and ballot boxes. The Minister, with his usual courtesy and sympathy, will no doubt accept that point. We must ensure that the polling station is placed in the most accessible part of the building.

Mr. Mellor: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any duty placed on returning officers will also be a duty


on their staff, and that would include presiding officers. The returning officers must ensure that the presiding officers do not take decisions contrary to the duties laid upon them. These are very local matters, which is why I stress again that, although we can lay a framework placing an obligation on returning officers, it is the people in the locality who must act on any suggestion that that obligation is being breached by insensitive placing of polling stations.
I share some of the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea about amendment No. 32. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I have teased him a little that his services on the Select Committee have caused him to be put into purdah on this Bill. The invisible export of his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to Sri Lanka has brought the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. However, I gather that his hon. Friend is due to return.
We must ensure that the polling station is made as accessible as possible for the disabled and I believe that considerable strides forward can be made in that direction. The difficulty with making arrangements for the disabled to vote at polling stations other than their own is that it cuts across what was eloquently described by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, when he said that the disabled want to exercise their franchise rights in as normal a way as possible. Obviously, to go to someone else's polling station is abnormal. To accept that would be almost an admission that we cannot make the overwhelming majority of polling stations accessible for the disabled.
Since 1887, those working at the polling stations on election day have had the right to vote in polling stations other than their home station. It is an informal arrangement because it does not rely on there being a printed list of the people available at the polling station at which they cast their vote. They are placed on trust—if they cast their vote in one polling station they will not then go to their home polling station and cast again. I am not suggesting that disabled people would take the opportunity offered by amendment No. 32 to cast their vote twice. But as there is no structure within which to take wider than the limited application — applying to police officers, presiding officers, staff and so on—the right to vote at another polling station, it would be difficult to make an extension without building in some kind of administrative infrastructure which might be more trouble that it would be worth.
I suggest that, having made progress by common consent in the direction of the sentiments expressed in new clause 13, we leave amendment No. 32 for the moment in the hope that the accessibility of the individual's polling station might be so improved that we shall not need to look at the necessity to go further and adopt the alternative scheme that amendment No. 32 suggests.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister agree that the number of persons involved in the suggestion embodied in amendment No. 32 would be small, so that there would not be the degree of administrative difficulty that he foresees? We are thinking of a limited number of cases, such as that of my friend whose nearest polling station is only 70 yards distant but is in a different polling district. Under the scheme proposed in the amendment, the polling station would be nominated at the time of application. Thus, few of the difficulties to which the Minister referred

would arise. Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will give the matter more thought between now and Report, and I shall write him on the subject.

Mr. Mellor: I always take the hon. Gentleman seriously and will consider anything about which he writes to me. We have made such progress in the direction of improvements in relation to what one might term the home polling station that I am not sure that I shall be likely to change my mind about amendment No. 32, and I hope that I carry hon. Members with me in uttering a word of caution about that amendment.
I hope that it has been abundantly demonstrated in our debates on the Bill generally that we are interested in trying to carry as wide a consensus as possible on the proposals that are being made about the rules by which we get to this place and by which a great many more do not get here.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Battersea focused on new clause 33 because it embraces an important concept. Because of the adminstrative difficulties of arranging absent voting, an application for an absent vote must be in on the Wednesday, two weeks and one day before polling day, on the assumption one always makes that polling day is on a Thursday.
Because of the considerable widening of the availability of absent votes under the Bill, we thought it right to say—my right hon. and learned Friend said it in the debate on the White Paper — that we intended to make arrangements by which applications for postal votes would close on the Monday, two weeks and three days before polling day.
We recognise that that two weeks and three days is a considerable time, during which, in the normal course of events, some people will fall ill or be admitted to hospital and that a number of people will lose the ability to go to the polls in person without having the entitlement to obtain absent voting facilities.
It has been represented to us by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, and formally by the Opposition, that it would be appropriate to make arrangements by which procedures could be introduced to allow people taken ill during that period to have a chance to apply later for absent voting facilities, be it in respect of a postal vote or, as is proposed in new clause 33, by proxy.
The Government have been looking at this issue since we embarked on the process of consultation on the Bill. We consulted the political parties and local authority associations at an early stage on a proposal to give the registration officer a discretion to accept late applications in those circumstances.
The local authority associations were unenthusiastic about the extra work that it would cause them. However, I am not sure that the case for taking action is not sufficiently compelling to hon. Members for it to be appropriate to take the matter back to the local authority associations and say that it is the will of Parliament that some change be made in that direction.
There will remain a live issue as to what the cut-off point should be for that; plainly, it could not be allowed right up to polling day. There would have to be a few days before polling day when anyone then taken ill would lose the right to vote. I believe that I carry the Committee with me in saying that it would be right to try to move the deadline markedly forward for those taken ill or admitted to hospital.
We can do that without adding anything to the face of the Bill. While I appreciate that the new clause was tabled as a way of enabling the matterto be considered, the hon. Member for Battersea will appreciate that the matter could be dealt with by way of regulations. If I give an undertaking that, on having further consultations with the parties and local authority associations on when the cut-off point should be, we shall put new arrangements in regulations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause, having achieved the purpose which he had in mind.

Mr. Dubs: indicated assent.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is a distinction between putting the cut-off date nearer to polling day and making different arrangements for those who, between whatever is the cut-off date and polling day, still might qualify. We shall have to reflect on the Minister's statement. In the meantime, will he agree that, from the point of view of those engaged in an election, the cut-off date, though much too early at present — experience at the last election reinforced that view in many people's minds—is of considerable importance, as all sorts of procedures related to communication with the electors hang on that date? There were, therefore, two distinct propositions wrapped up in what the Minister said.

Mr. Mellor: That is why we shall take further views before making any announcement about regulations. As the right hon. Gentleman says, these are significant points, and we do not want to create difficulties elsewhere by moving towards a means of enfranchising the limited number of people—an important section of the community—who fall ill in that period. They would need to be different arrangements from those that would apply before the main cut-off point, which, for the administrative reasons that I have given, must be longer before polling day than most of us, as practising candidates, would ever have wished.
On the basis that this has been a useful debate and that the main thrust of the points has gone home or will be acted on by the Government, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Hannam: The Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he responded to the debate and for his acceptance of the principle involved, which is to try to enable disabled people to vote in person rather than by any other means. To win two out of three is a good record in any debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

ABSENT VOTE AT ELECTIONS FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 17, after 'keep', insert
'and supply to each of the candidates nominated in the constituency.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 45, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, after 'keep', insert
'and supply to each of the candidates nominated in the constituency.'.

Mr. Beith: The Under-Secretary of State responded helpfully to the points made in the last group of

amendments, and I hope that he did so in a spirit of improving the Bill and accepting the sensible suggestions that will prevail in our discussions. There are many sensible suggestions on the Amendment Paper from me and my hon. Friends. I have no doubt that the consideration will proceed apace on that basis.
Amendment No. 35 is a probing amendment because what it seeks to do will — if it is done properly — be done in regulations. One matter that was common to both sides of the argument when we discussed the extension of the postal vote was the importance of the candidate being able to address the voters. If there is to be a considerable extension of postal voting, as envisaged in the Bill, it is important that candidates should have the information that is necessary to enable them to address the voters. The essential part of that information is the list of voters and the place to which that information can be sent. It is already the practice—this is enshrined in the regulations made under the Representation of the People Act 1983 — that returning officers supply candidates free of charge with a copy of the list of absent voters. The Bill significantly changes the law on postal voting. No doubt, the regulations will be modified as a consequence of this legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that candidates have the right to obtain as expeditiously as possible and free of charge a list of absent voters.
The discussion at the conclusion of our debate on the last series of amendments underlined the need to convey all that information to the canndidates, including late additions to the list of absent voters which might be made under more generous provisions to enable people to register as absent voters at a later stage. That information must be made available to the candidates with the utmost speed, and the regulations should make it clear that that should be done. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us that assurance.

Dr. Marek: This is a probing amendment because its provisions will be covered under regulations. If this legislation is passed, many more people will receive postal votes. It has been estimated that up to 30 per cent. of votes could be postal votes. That is why we have to examine this measure seriously.
Until now the postal vote register has been of some interest, but it will be of much greater interest in future to all the candidates and political parties. If possible, I should like the electoral registration officer to have a running list so that between elections political parties and, during elections, candidates, can be supplied as quickly as possible with a current printout of the absent voters list. That is an important point.
Electoral registration officers in some parts of the country have the habit of including in the list the names of electors in previous years, even though they have no idea whether those electors are still in the area. I believe that there will be increased possibilities for illegal voting if many postal vote applications are sent out to voters and are not picked up but are left lying around letterboxes. I do not believe that this is the time to discuss these aspects in detail, because I believe that they will be considered later in the Bill. I look forward to a helpful reply from the Government.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am surprised that these amendments have been tabled. All of us who have been


candidates for election know that a full list of absent voters is available in the committee room. I am, therefore, surprised to find that that measure needs to be recorded in this legislation. Every candidate has a right to obtain that list. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) hinted at the need for a more accurate list, and I sympathise with his wish. It is important to keep that list up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) indicated in an amendment which has not been selected that changing the list by using a computer would be the most helpful way of keeping the list up to date. It is sufficient for there to be trust in us as candidates and lists on which we can rely. I shall certainly not support either of the amendments.

Mr. William Powell: The amendments raise two fundamental principles, which go to the heart of the Bill. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) touched on those principles. For once I am delighted to agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) in his short contribution.

Mr. Forth: Uncharacteristically short.

Mr. Powell: One of those fundamental issues is the accuracy of the register. The purpose of these probing amendments is to ensure that the list is as accurate as possible. Substantial criticisms have been made about the inaccuracy of the registers. Unfortunately, I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is not prepared to go far enough in ensuring that the registers are as accurate as possible. The Bill contains a defect because there is not sufficient provision to improve what has been widely held to be a substantial weakness in our present system.
These modest amendments should be supported in so far as they aim to improve the accuracy of the register. One criticism made by the hon. Member for Wrexham, which has been voiced repeatedly during our debates from the time we first discussed the White Paper—no one has been more eloquent on this subject than the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—is that we are possibly increasing substantially the number of votes cast by post. In doing that, we are limiting what has been a fundamental principle of voting since the passing of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Ballot) Act. In future, the proportion of people who vote in person will not be as high as previously. By increasing the opportunities for postal voting, we are increasing the opportunities for fraud and dishonesty which may result from ballots being cast in absentia.
I have urged the Committee to enlarge the opportunity to exercise the franchise. Having regard to the criticisms that have been made, much can be said for improving the accuracy of the register rather than increasing, almost at large, the opportunities for postal voting.

Mr. Forth: I regret that my hon. Friend has lost me. I understood that the objective of the amendments was to make existing information available on a wider basis to candidates. I am not sure that the objective was to improve accuracy. Perhaps I have missed the amendment's point. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am saying that it is a weakness of the amendments that they

do not try—any more than the Government intend to try—to make the registers more accurate to minimise the necessity to vote by post. We may well have the opportunity of enlarging upon this point later this evening.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is straying some way from the amendments before us. I hope that he will return to them.

Mr. Powell: I accept that rebuke, Mr. Walker. I shall try in my concluding remarks to bring myself back within the scope of the amendments. We must try to ensure that the information that is available is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. These amendments go to that issue. We must try to ensure that the registers actively reflect the electorate that is resident in the constituency. To the extent to which these amendments do not deal with that point they are defective.

Sir John Farr: I respect what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has said, and I think that the main intention of most hon. Members who are here tonight is to strive to secure perfection and the utmost accuracy in the electoral register. There are occasions when the electoral register is hopelessly inaccurate.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has just heard me draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) the fact that such a line of debate is outside the scope of the amendments. I hope that, if the hon. Member wishes to address the Committee, it will be on these amendments and not on some others.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Walker. However, my remarks relate to the fact that when one compiles a list of postal or proxy voters, as amendments Nos. 35 and 45 are seeking to do, these additional alterations and changes, either by post or by proxy, make what is not an easy task — getting the electoral register accurate — even more difficult. The addition of postal and proxy records would add to the already great imperfections that often occur in general elections.

The Chairman: Order. The amendments deal not with the problems that the electoral registration officer may have in compiling the register but with the distribution of it. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the distribution of the registers rather than the conduct of them.

Sir John Farr: I have no hesitation in accepting your ruling, Mr. Walker, but I was seeking to point out that the amendments add a further complication. The records are often imperfect, and to include the postal and proxy voters, as recommended in the amendments, would make an already difficult problem even more difficult.

Mr. Mellor: I was wondering what to talk about when I rose, but I decided that it would be appropriate to return to the amendments. A moving picture was painted by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) of his being out in the cold pressing his nose against the window pane while others were inside warming themselves at the fire of ministerial benevolence. I invite him to join us and to put his toes in the embers for a little while. Taking his amendments in the spirit in which they were offered—as a probe — I had some research undertaken which might show him that what he is asking us to do is not necessary because the information is already available. I


shall adduce my arguments, and if he thinks that there are flaws I shall be happy to return to the subject at some other time.
The hon. Gentleman has a limited aim. He seeks to ensure that candidates are supplied with copies both of the so-called permanent list of absent voters and of the special list of those who have the right to vote by post or proxy at a particular election. The registration officer is already required by regulations to supply candidates with copies of the special list. The candidates do not need copies of the permanent list, because its contents form part of the special list. That is the fundamental point.
Clause 6(3) requires the registration officer to keep a record of those whose applications to vote by post or proxy for an indefinite period he has granted. That is equivalent to the so-called permanent list of absent voters that the registration officer is required to keep under certain sections of the Representation of the People Act 1983, with which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is familiar.
Clause 7(4) requires the registration officer to keep a special list of those who are entitled to vote by post or proxy at a particular election. That is the same as the list required by rule 27 of the parliamentary elections rules, and it consists of those whose names are included in the permanent list or record of absent voters, plus those who have successfully applied to vote by post or proxy at a particular election.
Regulations under the 1983 Act currently require the registration officer to make a copy of the so-called permanent list available for inspection at his office and, as soon as practicable, to supply, on request and free of charge, a copy of the special list to each candidate or his election agent.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman by giving him an undertaking that these requirements will be preserved when the new representation of the people regulations are made after the Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope and expect it will in due course.
The effect of the amendments would be for candidates to be provided with a copy of the permanent list as well of the special list and for them to be supplied automatically on request.
On the first point, it is perhaps unnecessary for candidates to be suppled with both lists when all the information contained in the first list is contained in the second list. Secondly, I would oppose automatic provision, because not all candidates want it. For instance, candidates of the Official Monster Raving Loony party, which as I understand it is not yet formally part of the alliance, might not always want such information, and I see no reason why we should give it to them gratuitously.

Mr. Beith: I accept the Minister's undertaking. I hope that he recognises that this issue could be more difficult for returning officers, with the great expansion of the postal vote, than may have been foreseen. There must be hon. Members here who are aware that, even in the present circumstances, returning officers can run into difficulties if there is a sudden upsurge in the number of postal votes registered in the early part of an election campaign. Getting the list to candidates, even under present conditions, is not always done with the expedition that one

would desire. There can be no doubt that the returning officers' task will be more difficult in the first election to be fought under the changed rules set out by the Bill, because almost certainly there will be a much larger number of applications and, were there to be substantial delays, that would be a serious matter.
It had been my assumption that, as the right was already in the existing regulations, it would be preserved. The intention of the amendments, which were in no way defective, was to check that that assumption was justified. I happily accept the Minister's assurance, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Marek: I apologise for coming in at this late stage. I wanted to intervene in the Minister's speech. Could he answer one point? I know of cases where the returning officer has not allowed a person to photocopy any part of the list, even though that person may have been a bona fide inquirer. If he wanted to take notes, he has had to do so in longhand. Can the Minister take this on board in the regulations so that bona fide inquirers, possibly a month before an election, will be allowed to photocopy the list, if necessary?

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am keen to have an answer to this point, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer it. It concerns the cut-off date for drawing up this list before it is provided to the candidates. I am concerned about the accuracy of the list. As many more people will be going on the postal and absentee voters' lists, it is important to keep the lists accurate. I am keen to know whether my hon. Friend is able to estimate the particular cut-off date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (6).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 36, in page 10, line 1, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.
No. 46, in clause 7, page 11, line 24, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.
No. 50, in clause 9, page 15, line 6, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Kaufman: Throughout our consideration of this proposed reform of electoral law—during the debate on the White Paper, on Second Reading and during consultations that Her Majesty's Opposition have had with the Government—we have made it clear that absolute parity of treatment between electors in all parts of the United Kingdom, whether in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, is essential in parliamentary elections.
I have made it clear on behalf of the Labour party that to impose on part of the kingdom restrictions which are not imposed upon another part is to turn the citizens of the kingdom subject to those restrictions literally into second-class citizens. I say "literally" because that adverb is much misused. In this case we are talking about a literal fact.
Citizenship is dependent, among other things, upon the exercise of the franchise. That is a token of adult citizenship. For limitations to be imposed on those with a franchise in one part of the kingdom when they are not imposed upon others is unacceptable.
We have agreed that the expatriate vote should be conferred upon all citizens of this kingdom with the right


to vote. We disagree with and make no bones about the expatriate vote, but it is clear from the legislation that any expatriate voter from Northern Ireland will be treated in the same way as an expatriate voter from the other three countries of the kingdom.
Clause 6(6) discriminates clearly, because it refers only to Northern Ireland. The subsection states:
A person applying to vote by post in Northern Ireland must provide an address in the United Kingdom as the address to which his ballot paper is to be sent.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and his right hon. and hon. Friends seek to amend the clause by placing a limitation upon all voters in the United Kingdom who require postal votes. They say that all absent voters who exercise the postal vote may do so only within the United Kingdom. That is an arguable proposition. I have severe misgivings about sending ballot papers out of the country. That is one of the great worries about the postal vote in general and one of the subsidiary worries that I expressed on behalf of the Opposition in relation to the expatriate vote.
A suitable limitation would be to permit all people exercising the absent vote within the kingdom to vote by post, provided that they are somewhere within the kingdom, but to use a proxy vote if they go outside the kingdom. That is my personal preference for a number of reasons.
First, ballot papers would not wing their way all over the world in a way that could lead to misuse. Secondly, it would be a protection for the voters themselves. It would place absent voters on a par. It would mean that someone who had gone on holiday to Miami—assuming the rate of exchange permitted that—would be less likely to have a vote than somebody who had gone on holiday to Brittany. The postal service, even in some Community countries, is not always as good as it might be. Most of us will have sent a postcard home from Italy or France and arrived home before it, and will therefore be worried about ballot papers hanging around after a person has returned from holiday.
The better solution is to restrict the postal vote within the United Kingdom. I make it absolutely clear, so that there is no misunderstanding, that the Labour party favours postal votes for all holidaymakers, wherever they go, in whatever continent. We favour strongly an absent vote for holidaymakers. The suggestions that I make, in line with those made by right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, are not meant to inhibit the exercise of the vote for holidaymakers. We support their solution.
The alternative is to remove the subsection and provide that people in Northern Ireland should be allowed to have their ballot papers sent to them wherever they are, even outside the United Kingdom. In a sense, I am asking the Government to accept the amendments tabled by Northern Ireland Members rather than my amendment, but if the Government accepted my amendment, with assurances, that would be as good as any other solution. I have no pride of proprietorship in amendment No. 71. I have moved it to try to ensure that when the Bill is enacted Northern Ireland electors are treated in the same way as electors in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will respond sympathetically. Perhaps in the light of what I have said and what other right hon. and hon. Members may say, he

will give assurances and draft more appropriate amendments. Provided that his assurances are reliable and solid, that would suit us well. We regard this as a fundamental issue of democracy within the kingdom, and we hope the Government will respond accordingly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has made clear, two principles are at issue in this debate. The first is the principle of parity and the rights of citizens to vote in all parts of the United Kingdom. The second is the question of the sending of ballot papers outside the realm for the purpose of absent voting. On both those matters my right hon. and hon. Friends are in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
That will occasion no surprise in relation to the first of those principles. The fact that that principle has been so firmly asserted by Her Majesty's Opposition right from the first proposals which underlie this Bill has not gone unnoticed in Northern Ireland.
Ever since I became a Member for Northern Ireland and, indeed, since I first presented myself for election, I have told my electors, "In the end the House of Commons will be fair to you. It may take some time to understand the issues—to understand what is involved—but in the end there is an essential fairness about the House of Commons which derives from the fact that all who sit there go there with the same right, upon the same basis and by the same process." The position taken up — I think successfully—by Her Majesty's Opposition has been a strong confirmation of that view. It will assist in the restoration of stability and confidence in good government in that part of the United Kingdom.
I come, therefore, to the second principle which is at issue. Here again, it seems to me, the right hon. Member for Gorton is right when he says that there is something inherently unsatisfactory in a flight, as it were, of ballot papers issuing forth by post from these shores at a general election, no doubt with various addresses — anywhere from the nearest places outside the United Kingdom, which are presumably the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, to the most remote corners of the globe—with the likelihood in the lottery that they will arrive in the most remote corners of the globe sooner than in the adjacent continent of Europe; for it is a common experience that one receives letters from Australia far more rapidly than letters from France or Italy.
6 pm
That is an electoral absurdity, but that is what would happen. It would give electors who had sought an equal opportunity an unequal chance of exercising that opportunity. It is possible for us to retort to those electors, "Well, you entered the lottery. You took your choice. You decided to ask for a postal vote. It is your fault that the post in Miami, Australia or the south of France was not adequate for you to be able to exercise the franchise in time." That is not an attitude which the House in legislating should take. We ought to be instituting a system which is sound and equitable in itself. I do not believe it can be sound or equitable for rights of voting by post to be exercised from addresses outside the United Kingdom.
There is another, perhaps esoteric, aspect of the matter, but it may be worth mentioning. The provison of the opportunity to vote is an exercise of the sovereign power in this country, which is in commission with the House:


to arrange for a vote to be cast is an expression of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament in this realm. When we provide a proxy vote for an absent voter who has gone on holiday, outside the United Kingdom, wherever it might be, that principle is not breached; but when we send a ballot paper outwith the jurisdiction, in the hope that it will arrive in some foreign parts in time to enable the recipient to vote in this country, we are guilty of creating a breach of that principle.
It may be that at some future time, although I hope not —there have been earlier debates on this subject—we shall extend the whole concept of elections beyond the shores and confines of the realm, but we are not doing so in this Bill. The new rights which the Bill creates do not extend the concept of a general election as something domestic to the United Kingdom. We should not breach that principle by allowing postal voting beyond the confines of the realm.
I hope that the consideration that the Government give to this amendment will find a means of meeting the plea of the right hon. Member for Gorton not just on the first point—I am confident that their sense of justice will ensure that—but on the second point also.

Mr. William Powell: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for South Down (Mr. Powell), and to express complete agreement with the way in which they have expressed their arguments. As has been said, the amendments raise two principles, one of them of fundamental importance. The other is of secondary importance, but it goes to the heart of the mechanics by which we ballot.
The principle of fundamental importance is that the rules for election should be the same in Northern Ireland as they are in England, Wales and Scotland. That is a principle by which everyone should be able to stand. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland come to the House frequently to complain that Northern Ireland is being treated differently from the rest of England. I have listened to those arguments for the past 18 months and more with a growing sense of apprehension that they are not correct in the way in which they are formulated. I have frequently found myself going into the Lobby to support the Government with a heavy heart. On one occasion at least, I have been one of the lone Conservatives prepared to go into the Lobby with hon. Members representing Northern Ireland when they have complained about Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The amendment raises a fundamental principle of our election law. I should find it impossible to support a provision which treated constituencies in Northern Ireland, as to the franchise, differently from constituencies in England, Wales, Scotland, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire or wherever.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognises that all parts of the House are anxious to ensure, if it is at all feasible—I do not see in this instance how it is not — that Northern Ireland is given the same indivisible treatment under our law as every other citizen of the country.
The other principle is not on such an elevated plane, but it is important. It relates to whether persons entitled to vote

abroad should vote by post or by proxy. In the month preceding the general election in June 1983, I and other hon. Members were accosted by disgruntled constituents complaining that they would not be able to vote because they would be on holiday. I always answered that if we were able to secure votes for holidaymakers who were abroad, as likely as not they would be cast by proxy, and that if they were in the United Kingdom, as likely as not the votes would be cast by post. If we allow postal ballot papers to be sent to addresses abroad, the likelihood of them being mislaid is considerable. For all we know, the post in Tibet may be a great deal more reliable than the post in France, Belgium or Luxembourg. If we were to regard it as normal to send substantial numbers of ballot papers abroad, that would be unsatisfactory.
I have argued, I hope most vigorously, in favour of the extension of the franchise. Not every right hon. and hon. Member has agreed with that. There has been a substantial division of opinion among hon. Members on that issue.
The principles have by and large been established during the course of our debates. The outline of the principles is clear. We are now dealing with the mechanics. When my hon. Friend and his advisers come to deal with the regulations by which the principles that we have laid down should be enforced, I hope that he will attach much more weight than the Treasury Bench has so far appeared to do to the idea that persons abroad should vote in this country by proxy rather than that we should waste a great deal of time, effort and money ensuring that they have postal votes. It may be difficult to reach such people. A great many votes may be returned to returning officers after a constituency has declared its result. Electors wishing to cast a valid vote will find that they are ruled out of time through no fault of their own but through the vagaries of the post at home or abroad.
I do not rule out the fact that postal voting for some people abroad may be appropriate, but I hope that much more emphasis will be given to encouraging them to vote by proxy.

Mr. Molyneaux: I wish to record our appreciation for the support from both sides of the Committee for our amendments. We are grateful that this support has emerged towards the end of what has been a fairly lengthy — I do not say battle — correspondence between the Home Office and ourselves.
I should like to place on record the fact that I am not excluding the Minister from my expression of gratitude because he listened attentively and, dare I say, sympathetically, at all times to the case that my right hon. and hon. Friends put forward. He, in turn, explained many of the difficulties, but I think that it is true to say that, as a combined operation, perhaps this was one of the best examples of co-operation between both sides of the House —I include both Front Benches and, indeed, the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). It has given us great satisfaction that we have reached that consensus.
It is important to acknowledge that absent voting is different from postal voting. When we talk about the principle of absent voting and its availability for holidaymakers, we agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in saying that it would be best exercised by proxy and not by any attempt to work the unworkable and go for postal ballot papers outside the United Kingdom. I reckon from my limited experience of


receiving correspondence from abroad that if persons were to entrust their franchise, their right to vote, at a general election, to the European postal system—I shall put it no further abroad than that—only one third of the ballot papers would be returned in time to be included in the count at any given constituency.
Therefore, I hope that the message and advice that go out from the Committee to people who will want to avail themselves of the facility of absent voting will be that they should play safe and be 100 per cent. certain that, if they adopt the proxy method, there is no risk of it being exploited, and that the vote that they cast as citizens of a democratic country will have its due effect.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am pleased to be able to follow the leader of the Official Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), because he sincerely put forward the views of Conservative Members and also, I believe, of Opposition Members. It is a fact of life that Northern Ireland wishes to be treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I have great sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. I would support them if they were forced to a vote.
I should like to refer to the risk of absent voting and the fact that voting by proxy is by far the most sensible course to take. There is always the element of ballot papers not being sent to the right place and getting lost in the post. Indeed, only today I received a letter informing me that I had been appointed to the Committee on the Local Government Access to Information Bill. The letter is dated 6 February and arrived today. I had already been given dates and times, which were announced in the paper. Yet the letter was posted in and sent to the House of Commons. If it takes that long for a letter posted in this building to be delivered, it shows the difficulties that we are up against with regard to sending postal votes abroad.
I feel strongly that we should stop all postal voting from abroad in the sense that I am unconvinced that the ballot paper will arrive there on time and, more important, that it will be delivered to the right place. One cannot even be certain of who has voted. There might not necessarily be a witness of the person casting his vote although there is supposed to be a witness when one completes the postal vote form.
For that reason alone I hope very much that we shall encourage and support the principle of proxy voting. It would be the only way of guaranteeing true identification. In the past we have heard of massive problems with voting in Northern Ireland. We only have to look at the House of Commons Library research note No. 195, which on page 7 refers to Cmnd. 9140. Paragraph 322 states:
There is widespread public concern, shared by the Government, at the extent and nature of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland, including the abuse of postal voting.
That causes all of us concern. It is therefore obvious to me and, I hope, other hon. Members that the best solution is to vote by proxy.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad not to have to sound a discordant note and to be in wholehearted agreement with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who moved the amendment. My hon. Friends in the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party adopt his reasoning and believe that the case that he made should commend itself to the Government.
It would be of some interest, if only for historical reasons, to know why the clauses to be amended were presented in the way that they were in the first place. The principle of equality of citizenship in the exercise of the franchise should apply throughout the whole of the kingdom. It is odd that political difficulties within the Province should have led the Government to make such a proposal that did not recognise that fundamental constitutional right. Problems of personation there may be, but that is not the way to deal with them.

Mr. Bermingham: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for moving the amendment. The reason why my hon. Friends and I tabled the amendment is simple. We could not see why there should be any difference in any part of the United Kingdom. What is good for one is good for all; what is bad for one is bad for all. Against that background, we hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), supported by clear signs of assent, which I welcomed, from the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), paid tribute to the work done to try to resolve differences that were made clear on Second Reading about the arrangements that should exist in Northern Ireland regarding the extent and exercise of absent voting. I greatly enjoyed participating in those discussions. It has always been my wish to try to ensure that there is the maximum agreement possible on the measure because, plainly, that is the nature of the Bill. As a result of the efforts that have been made, we have been able to clear away some substantial differences.
I do not want to anticipate too much the debate on the next set of amendments. What could have been a highly contentious matter, which could have kept us here for some time, has now been resolved amicably and with a consensus that the right decision has been reached. I am grateful to the right hon. Members for Gorton and for Lagan Valley for their participation in the careful negotiations necessary to bring us to that point.
However, one issue remains unresolved. Before embarking on that, it is important to note that it is the one issue that remains unresolved in this area. It relates to a narrow point of mechanics, if I may say so, without wanting to disparage those who see this as a matter of deep principle. In my view, for what it is worth, it is a very narrow matter of mechanics. Having determined whether there should be absent voting and for what categories, how should it be exercised? Is it right that the elector should be offered a choice in every circumstance on whether he votes by post or by proxy, or should restrictions be placed on his choice? If restrictions should be placed on his choice, should one of the considerations be, in deciding what restrictions to impose, whether it is possible to have wholly consistent arrangements throughout the United Kingdom? The Government have taken—I think rightly —a severely practical view.
The right hon. Member for Gorton has made it clear that the Opposition support the view that it is no longer possible to have general elections when many of the electorate are away on holiday and effectively disfranchised. A real consensus has been established on that, although there are agents of both major parties who see nothing but gloom arising from the proposed changes.
However, I think that the general feeling is that the changes must be made and that democracy will be strengthened by the increased number who will be able to cast their vote as a result of the implementation of the Bill. In certain months we are talking of literally millions of votes. For example, we think that there may have been 2 million voters on holiday at the time of the 1983 general election.
How will the franchise be exercised? Application will have to be made on the Monday that is two weeks and three days before the election. Those concerned will then go to the Hotel Splendid at Torremolinos or some similar location within the United Kingdom. Is it necessary to impose a restriction, dependent on whether the individual is to be in Paris or Spain as opposed to Edinburgh or Birmingham, on how the absent vote should be exercised?
The Government have taken the view, rightly or wrongly, that the issue comes down to a matter of practicality. If a vote is sent through the post, the fact that it goes to Paris or Plymouth is not one that involves a great issue of principle. The problems stemming from tampering with a vote are no more likely to arise if the vote is entrusted to the French postal service than if it is placed in the charge of various parts of the United Kingdom's system.
We have taken heed of the evidence that the Post Office officials gave to the Select Committee. That evidence suggested that, if the returning officer in any constituency in the United Kindom was in a position to issue postal ballot papers on the Monday 10 days before the poll—the Post Office officials said that in their experience that was usually the position in most well-ordered constituencies—there would be time for postal ballot papers to be issued to and returned from at least some addresses outside the United Kingdom. Plainly if someone were at the Hotel Splendid at Ulan Bator, he would be unwise to rely upon the ability of the postal services to get his postal ballot there and back within 10 days.
We say — I hope that the right hon. Member for South Down will recognise the Government's basic principle even if he does not agree with the whole argument—that the voter should have the choice and should abide by the consequences of his choice, just as he does in most of the choices that he makes. If the voter decides to exercise his absent vote by post and the postal service does live up to expectations and he loses his vote, he has taken the decision and that is that. I am not sure whether it is a proper inhibition on our making of rules that voters might make the wrong decision. After all, it is only one of a series of wrong decisions that voters are capable of making in an election.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Hear hear.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman says that with great feeling. I understand that slightly more than 100 of the electorate in his constituency made the right choice rather than the wrong one, by his way of thinking, during the general election.
We think that the voter is entitled to take the risk that I have described. He should know—no doubt the Post Office will tell him if there is any doubt—what the likelihood is of the postal vote getting to Paris, Spain or Italy and back again. Those who have participated in the

debate have not been disposed to favour this proposal. It is not a matter on which I want to invite my hon. Friends to go into the trenches with me, as it were, to turn it into an issue of principle. As I have said, I have never seen it in that way. I want to reflect on what has been said, including the condemnation from various quarters. Therefore, I am reluctant to spoil the consensus which has been established generally in this one instance, but that is not a commitment that the Government will definitely change their minds.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that we should not in any sense derogate from our position of giving holidaymakers the postal vote by saying that they could exercise it only by proxy. Of course, that might ensure that more votes were actually cast. I remain of the the view, without having had the advice of the House of Commons, that this should be a matter of choice for the voter, and that we have reached a stage where the communications system is such that the crossing of a national boundary should not be an obstacle.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I wish to float an idea to my hon. Friend which has occurred to me while he has been speaking. During the elections in France I happened to notice that the French embassy in London was open to those who wished to register their votes in England in those elections. What is my hon. Friend's view on the same facilities being made available to our citizens at all our consular offices and embassies throughout the world prior to general elections? The date would be published throughout the country.

Mr. Mellor: At first sight, I am not especially attracted to my hon. Friend's idea as a realistic proposition. I shall think about it and perhaps my view will be different on reflection, but I think probably not.
The Government believe as a matter of practicality that it is better that voters should be given the choice of a postal ballot and that no great issue of principle arises. It is said that there is an issue of principle in the equal treatment of all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not belittle that argument because there has to be a good reason why there should not be equal treatment. As the right hon. Members for Lagan Valley and for South Down and their colleagues know, it is that fact which has motivated me in my efforts to try to ensure the maximum possible correspondence between the practice in Great Britain and that in Northern Ireland.
If there is a good reason for there being a difference in treatment, I do not believe that there is any great argument of principle on why the difference should not be permitted to exist. There is a good reason—I think that we all know it—why postal votes should not be sent out of the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland into the Republic. I do not think that any of those representing constituencies in Northern Ireland would want postal ballots to be sent from the Province to the Republic. It is clear also that no distinction can be made between the Republic and any other country. As a practical proposition, sending ballot papers out of the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland is not something that we would want to suggest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has become sufficiently convinced of the case for there being precisely the same arrangements in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom to expound that cause


with even more zeal than his mentors in the Ulster Unionist party, but that is ever the way of the convert, as we know only too well. St. Paul set an admirable precedent.
If we are to intrude a fact into these considerations, the arrangements in Northern Ireland are not the same as those in the United Kingdom in at least one material particular. I have in mind the important issue of the qualification date. It has never been seen necessary in Great Britain —indeed, it is not necessary—to do other than establish that on one night—it could be any night, but it happens to be a night in October—one is resident at a particular address for the purpose of getting oneself on the register. That has always been thought inappropriate in Northern Ireland because of the fear that people will come from the South for one night, whatever the one night is, register and then return to the South, only to return on election day to exercise the franchise. That is why the qualification period for registration in Northern Ireland is several weeks. No one has said that the principle that everyone should be elected to the House on the same basis is thereby destroyed.
Before doing what everyone in the Committee probably wishes me to do, may I venture the suggestion that this may not be a great matter of principle. One could, of course, go into a trench and say that there were precisely the same compelling reasons for having a different view about whether one sent a postal vote out of the jurisdiction as there properly are for the time that one must be resident in order to register.
Having got that off my chest, I should say that the Government are not greatly attached to the proposition. There is certainly room for reconsideration. We shall reconsider the matter, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a commitment to change it. We can return to the matter later. I shall consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and others as to whether we should change the proposal, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he has achieved what he set out to achieve.

Mr. Kaufman: My regard for the Under-Secretary of State has grown steadily during the months since we faced each other over the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and especially since I discovered that he was much more knowledgeable about the music of Berwald than I am. That being so, I am always ready to take seriously what he says. However, he has a strange tendency which, if he is to become leader of the Conservative party—we all look forward to that—he must suppress. It is to introduce extraneous contentious material at the end of a consensus debate. There will soon come a time when the Conservative party will again yearn for consensus, and he may be the very man to bring that to it.
Therefore, with regard to his latter point, I should say that it is on the face of this Bill that we find the introduction of disparity unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will have noted that from every quarter of the Committee there has been support for the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and his right hon. and hon. Friends. Support has come from the Conservative party, the Social Democratic party, the Liberal party and, of course, from Her Majesty's Opposition. That being so, although I understand that the Minister is not giving us a cast-iron, 100 per cent. commitment, we look forward to his returning to the

House on Report, or with an amendment in another place —whichever is easier for him in terms of drafting—to meet the point that the entire Committee has asked him to meet this afternoon.

Mr. Mellor: Of course, I give the commitment on that basis. The only point with which I would quibble, although not hoping to prove that the proposition advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is true in my case, is that other hon. Members who may be attracted to the Government's proposition do not show the same enthusiasm for attending our debate as those who dissent from it. However, I do not believe that it is worth having too many divisions on this issue, and in that spirit I shall go away to reflect upon the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would only point out that those hon. Members who take part in the debate are, for the purposes of the debate, the Committee of the whole House of Commons. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland will be happy tonight because of what the Minister has said about the representations made to him by hon. Members from Northern Ireland. We are glad that the voices of those who made representations for and on behalf of the Province were listened to, and that their points were met to a great extent. As he said, he is not giving us a cast-iron assurance, but from what he said it would appear that he will seriously consider the matter and try to meet the points that have been made by the Committee. That is most welcome. The Committee must recognise that all those who are returned to the House of Commons should have equality in their electorates and in the principles of democracy. On behalf of those for whom I speak, I put on record my appreciation of the way in which the Government listened sympathetically to our case.

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will allow me to treat that as an intervention, because otherwise I cannot withdraw the amendment. If I cannot withdraw it, it will be negatived, and I am sure that he would not wish that. Once again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir John Farr: I am glad to have the opportunity briefly to talk about clause 6. No one welcomes the Bill more than me. During the previous two elections I met people who, for one reason or another, were unable to vote. Clause 6 lays special emphasis on the record which the registration officer is required to keep. I am glad that the clause is itemised in the way that it is. However, I regret that nowhere in the Bill does one find the word "accuracy". I can keep a record—any Tom, Dick or Harry can keep a record—but what use is the record if it is inaccurate?
I wish to draw to the attention of the House the experience of many hon. Members of their constituents being left off the register due to human error. The Bill provides that the fine for a double vote or misrepresentation will be £2,000, which is level 5 on the standard scale. However, the Bill does not recognise instances of people being deprived of their votes, although they may have


gone through all the motions. They may have been resident on the proper night, have filled in the forms properly and posted them in time, but due to human error the register was inaccurate. We must consider how to recompense those who, through no fault of their own, are denied the birthright and the privilege of any British person to vote in a general or local government election. What can we do about that and about making the records much more accurate? The Bill values a vote at £2,000.
The Bill ought to mention that any person who has been deprived of a vote through no fault of his own should be recompensed by the local authority that was responsible for making the error. The Bill puts the value of a vote at £2,000. That is a very high and probably a proper price for a misdemeanour. However, when the misdemeanour occurs because of an error made by a local authority I believe that the innocent person who has suffered should be recompensed in a suitable way. I hope that my hon. Friend will believe it to be appropriate to recommend a five-year rate rebate for everybody who has missed a vote. That is a very insignificant recompense for the value of a vote, particularly in some constituencies where one vote or two votes can make all the difference between the return of one candidate or another.
I believe my hon. Friend ought to recommend that local authorities should do whatever they can to decrease the likelihood of human error. Computerisation is referred to on page 7 of the White Paper. The Select Committee recommended that all local authorities should seek to introduce what it called information technology for the compilation of their electoral registers. Recommendation (vii) in paragraph 1.10, under the heading "Computerisation", states:
All authorities should be encouraged, and if necessary assisted, to install and to use modern technology as an aid to accuracy in the compilation of their registers.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this clause deals exclusively with absent voters. He must not go into the general application of the clause.

Sir John Farr: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. However, the clause is meaningless unless the record to which reference is repeatedly made is an accurate record. I hope that my hon. Friend will think about what I have said and consider whether further efforts can be made to prevent innocent people from being deprived of their birthright.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I fully support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). The right to vote is very important. Therefore, it is important to keep one's name on the register when one is entitled to vote and to ensure it is removed from the register as soon as entitlement to vote comes to an end.
The registration requirements are set out clearly in clause 6. However, I am concerned about the cut-off date—whether the absent voter list will be accurate for the two weeks before an election is held. We have to ensure that at all times the register is accurate and that the constituency organisations know who is entitled to be on the list. I hope that there will be a requirement that people will have to be made aware of the fact that it is an offence for their name to be kept on the register after they have

declared that it is no longer their intention to exercise their right to vote. Provided that that undertaking is given, I believe that clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: Whether or not the argument is rightly attached to this clause—I take the point that you, Mr. Armstrong, have already made about that—it very much underlies our consideration of the Bill.
This matter has caused considerable concern to the Home Office and to other groups for a number of years. A working party on the electoral register reported in 1978. The Select Committee looked closely at the accuracy of the register. The first chapter of the White Paper upon which this legislation is based dealt with the registration of electors and set out a number of detailed points whereby we endeavoured to ensure that the accuracy of the register was improved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) properly raised the question of correcting the register. If an elector's name has been incorrectly omitted from the published register, he can make a claim for its inclusion. The registration officer will publish a notice of the claim and correct the register at the beginning of the following month. Omissions as a result of clerical error can be corrected at once. The power to change clerical errors has existed since 1969. The power to consider and act upon late claims has existed since 1980. The redesign of form A, the guidance to electoral registration officers, both formally and through meetings at which discussions have been held about the best way to ensure that the maximum number of people are included on the register and, where necessary, excluded, has been continuing at a great pace. As I said earlier, we hope that the accuracy of the register during the next few years will be materially better than it has been up to now as a result of all the initiatives that we have taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

ABSENT VOTE AT A PARTICULAR ELECTION AND ABSENT VOTERS LIST

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 10, line 6, leave out 'in Great Britain'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 38, in page 10, leave out lines 8 to 20.
No. 41, in page 10, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
No. 42, in page 10, line 26, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'The foregoing subsection'.
No. 43, in page 10, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
No. 44, in page 10, line 44, after 'constituency', insert—
'(v) at a general election, his residence on the date of the poll elsewhere than in the polling district allotted to him,
(vi) the general nature of his occupation, service or employment or that of his spouse'.
No. 47, in clause 9, page 14, line 4, leave out 'in the case of an election in Great Britain'.
No. 48, in clause 9, page 14, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 9 and insert
'the applicant is a person to whom section 7(3) of this Act applies'.


No. 49, in clause 9, page 14, line 10, leave out 'in the case of an election in Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Powell: The debate which I initiate by moving amendment No. 37 is in a very real sense an extension of the debate upon the last group of amendments, except that it is upon a much wider base and relates to a much more substantial subject. This is the clause which makes that large extension to the opportunity for exercising the franchise to which the Under-Secretary of State referred earlier. It does so not by a formal increase in the categories under which absent voting may be claimed and allowed but by a completely new approach to the expression of the basis of the right to claim an absent vote.
It was with great astonishment that we in Northern Ireland learned that it was intended to exclude that part of the United Kingdom from the extension of the opportunity to exercise the franchise which is implicit in the redrafting of the electoral law embraced in clause 7. I was glad to realise from the exchanges which took place a few moments ago between the two Front Benches that that discrimination is to be removed. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are content to believe that the reason for the discrimination in the first place was not because of any malice or evil intent towards the people of the Province but because of the, in our opinion, unfounded belief that the new grounds for exercising an absent vote would provide a special opportunity for electoral abuse. That was never a sound assumption.
The new basis will include people who will exercise the franchise inside the United Kingdom—whether or not outside the United Kingdom is still a matter to be decided. However, inside the United Kingdom, people will exercise the franchise by specifying an address to which the ballot paper is to be sent or alternatively by appointing a proxy to vote on their behalf. In neither of those circumstances is it practicable to organise large-scale electoral abuse. Only two proxies may be held by one and the same elector. Therefore, to organise massive abuse by means of the proxy system is almost unthinkable. Indeed, so far as I know, it has never been urged that the proxy system in Northern Ireland is seriously open to abuse.
That leaves abuse of voting by means of a ballot paper sent to an address in the United Kingdom. In the nature of things, those who will be on holiday or otherwise absent and unable to vote at their local polling station will specify a wide range of addresses at which they would like to receive their ballot papers. In some cases that will be their own residence where they will still be residing at the time when the postal ballot papers are issued. But in many other cases they will be addresses throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom. The operation of making contact with those addresses and somehow collecting those ballot papers when they are delivered, or alternatively bringing intimidation to bear upon the recipients of those ballot papers, is beyond all reasonable conception.
We know that the Northern Ireland Office has an almost hysterical anxiety about the Sinn Fein vote, an anxiety which we believe does not correspond with anything in the long-term electoral experience in Northern Ireland. But however malevolent Sinn Fein may be, there is a distinct limit to its organisational capabilities, and almost magical powers of organisation would be necessary in order for this new form of exercising the franchise to be seriously abused by those of evil intent.
Indeed, if any form of absent voting is arguably vulnerable to abuse, it is the absent vote for the person who

is disabled physically from going to the poll. Only in that case is it possible, first, to bring pressure to bear for certification where certification is not fully justified, and, secondly, to secure a number of postal votes in the same general area and thus bring the ballot papers within the conceivable scope of misuse.
So the one major form of absent voting which was still left to Northern Ireland happens ironically to be the only one where it is virtually practicable to conceive that large-scale abuse could take place. Even that is probably difficult to demonstrate on the basis of the electoral figures of the more recent elections in Northern Ireland.
I have entered upon that because it is important that it should be understood, not least in the Province, why it was first proposed that this new privilege of exercising the franchise should be withheld from the Province. But we rely upon the House, Her Majesty's Opposition and the Government, now that there has been fuller consideration and the opportunity maturely to consider the alternatives, to withdraw that discrimination and to apply either clause 7 or whatever re-drafting may be needed to replace clause 7 equally to Northern Ireland as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Powell: As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) observed, this is merely an extension of some of the principles that we were discussing on clause 6. The fundamental principle that Northern Ireland should have the same rules applies with just as much force as it did on clause 6. Notwithstanding the charming tag that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has chosen to try to label me with, I have undergone a conversion of not such a different character from the one that St. Paul underwent some years ago. My hon. Friend knows, just as well as I do, that I have been talking to him about this particular matter for a great many years—many more years than either of us would choose to remember. The principle is surely sound and the right hon. Member for South Down has correctly outlined the reasons why it is wrong to try to justify different rules for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Some sections of Whitehall may dwell substantially upon electoral abuse in Northern Ireland, but there is a real danger that that is being exaggerated in their minds. We have heard, brutally almost, during the course of our debates how the real nuts and bolts of the Bill are, to some extent, party advantage. Throughout various debates hon. Members have alluded to that. It is obvious that different parties have been trying to protect what they perceive to be their own interests as we have been dealing with a number of different matters.
The arguments about electoral abuse come down to what Sinn Fein does or may get up to. When we hear representatives of those parties from Northern Ireland who are the most determinedly opposed to Sinn Fein argue that we have exaggerated it all and that it is not capable of all the things that are said of it, that is a cry to which we should listen with respect. They are, after all, the people who have to fight Sinn Fein at the polls in Northern Ireland.
It ill becomes hon. Members from the rest of the United Kingdom, who have little or no knowledge of what an election is like in Northern Ireland, to try to devise rules which the overwhelming part of the community in Northern Ireland finds unnecessary. It may be that there are justifications for minor distinctions. I do not say that


my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is wrong to outline them from time to time, but, when it comes to the major matters I can see no justification for drawing substantially different rules and for exaggerating the prowess and ability of Sinn Fein to produce a false result at the polls.
The overwhelming evidence is that elections in Northern Ireland, just as much as in the United Kingdom, are conducted fairly and properly. I do not see why we should try to enact in statute different rules based upon assumptions which are fundamentally false.

Mr. Kaufman: One of the questions that I ask myself— perhaps the Minister, with the assistance of his officials, could help us—is whether it is too late to lodge an election petition in relation to Leicester, East.
I would very much like to support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the amendments which we have tabled which complete the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. He has properly moved to take out the words "in Great Britain" but the clause is still discriminatory as long as subsections (2) and (3) remain.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is right. Although the clause provides the new facility for an absent vote — a new facility which in principle Labour Members stongly support — it goes on to more than double itself in length by seeking stringently to limit that new right for electors in Northern Ireland. I must say with great clarity that we find that utterly unacceptable.
I do not want to follow right hon. and hon. Members on the detail of electoral problems and problems of public order within Northern Ireland. Those are matters to be dealt with not in a Representation of the People Bill, but in other ways if they are to be dealt with at all. Indeed, the Committee has recently been dealing with electoral problems in a manner which I must confess does not wholly appeal to me.
It is not acceptable to discriminate in the allocation or extension of the franchise on the basis of issues which relate not to the franchise but to the maintenance of order in a part of the United Kingdom. If we intend to do that, we must also consider other parts of the United Kingdom in other respects. That turns the franchise into a political issue rather than a political right.
7 pm
That being so—and the right hon. Member for South Down was perfectly right to say that in that sense the debate is an extension of the previous debate — I recommend the amendments and support the right hon. Gentleman's amendment in the interest of parity, which was the basis of the amendment that I moved and of the amendments that I supported in the previous debate. The arguments are self-evident. They have been put amply and eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendments so that we can move further still along the road that the Committee has already indicated it wishes to travel.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I do not know of any election petition in Manchester, Gorton, but I shall certainly take part in it if I have to.
I used to hesitate about discussing Northern Ireland matters if only because, although I had visited the

Province a couple of times, I would not have called myself an expert. Having visited Northern Ireland now on a number of occasions and participated in the Committee consideration of the Northern Ireland electoral legislation, I say now with more confidence that my hon. Friends know exactly what it is like and why Northern Ireland should not be treated in any way differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I support wholeheartedly what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said in moving the amendment. After all, it is in a way an extension of clause 6(6), which the Committee discussed a short while ago.
The Northern Ireland Office seems to treat Sinn Fein as the bogeyman, and gives it far more credibility than it should have. No hon. Member admires terrorism, but the democratic process must be allowed to continue. I will defend that right, and I will support hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies in any similar amendments.
The extension conferring a new facility must have the approval of the Committee. It makes a great deal of sense, it gives more self-respect to the people of Northern Ireland and above all it ensures that they will be treated no differently from those in any other part of the United Kingdom. For that reason, I support the amendments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support the amendments. We are dealing with the matter of the franchise and with the right of citizens of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland to have the same franchise rights as their colleagues in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Parliament has already considered some legislation relevant to the Sinn Fein activity in elections. I did not agree with what the Government did, but I listened carefully to their arguments and appreciated their point of view. I cannot accept that they have a different point of view on the issue now before the Committee because it is a clear-cut issue concerning the right of the people to vote. If one says that, because of Sinn Fein, people are to be asked to identify themselves, although I disagree with the method of identification, I can understand the argument. But I cannot understand any hon. Member arguing that, because the menace of Sinn Fein exists, the right of the people to vote will be taken away. That is the real issue before the Committee.
I am glad that there is a consensus in the Committee that all citizens of the United Kingdom should have the same right to vote at election time. Following the argument that was put forward in discussion of the last amendment and the basis on which it was accepted by the Government, I think that these amendments should be accepted. We shall then be on all fours with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I make a plea to that end.

Mr. Mellor: The fundamental point at issue has already emerged clearly as a result of the debate. I hope that my recognition of it will be apparent from what I am about to say.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to the dilemma in which the Government find themselves with regard to the basic structure of clause 7. The decision was irresistible, as I have said, and it is common ground from what has been said in most, if not all, speeches of hon. Members in the debate that there has to be a dramatic widening of the availability of absent voting arrangements to take account of changes in habits.
In almost any month in which an election is held, there will be hundreds of thousands of people — in some months even millions—away on holiday. It is no longer possible to sustain the argument that they should be deprived of their votes when it is apparent that necessarily they will have booked their holidays long before a Prime Minister takes the decision to hold an election.
As the right hon. Member for South Down recognised, that posed a dilemma. We could add to what was already regarded as an anomalous list of categories, which was riddled with holes and difficulties if we chose to examine it carefully, a couple more equally anomalous categories. After all, what of the person who has to go to nurse a sick aunt? That would be a perfectly legitimate reason for being away from home, but, unless such a person were prepared to claim that it was a holiday—it would not, on the face of it, appear to be much of a holiday — that person would be deprived of his vote. That is clearly not right.
We therefore decided — and I am glad that the Committee accepts this—to sweep all that away. Clause 7(1)(a), which appears to be small and insubstantial—much like many of the others in the Bill—is substantial. It establishes one overall basis for the availability of absent voting facilities by requiring the registration officer to grant an application for absent voting if he is satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be, or are likely to be, such that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted or likely to be allotted to him under the appropriate rules.
It seemed to us compelling that if we established that that one clearly understood test had the application set out, countersigned with a penal sanction attached for the first time, this was an appropriate way — indeed, the only way—of moving forward, consistent with the objective of widening the franchise.
Our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office had to advise us on the likely effect of the widening of the franchise on the Province, against the background of concern about the damage that would be done to the Province if certain parties grew to prominence as a result of massive electoral abuse. Those arguments were sufficiently compelling for Parliament in the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 to approve a measure that recognised the nature and extent of organised malpractice in Northern Ireland, and to set out a different set of safeguards on the personal exercise of the franchise that will come into effect at the next election.
I was grateful for the recognition by the right hon. Member for South Down, with his customary fairness, of the good faith of Northern Ireland Ministers. They considered that the effect of the measure might be nullified if there was such a broadening of absent voting categories that it enabled many more people to avoid the necessity of going to the polling station and complying with the new arrangements in the statute, with a consequent continuation of malpractice. It was on that basis, and in good faith, that clause 7 was drafted so that the extension of the absent voting facilities, which was to be granted to Great Britain, would not be granted in Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for South Down and his colleagues made clear, as did the Opposition, their concern about our proposal. At the end of my speech in reply to the debate, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether, as the Bill progressed, we would be prepared to justify, case by case and detail by detail, the reason why the differences were being included

in the Bill. I willingly assented to that request, because I realised that we would have to do that if we were to persuade Parliament that our proposal was necessary.
We have had extensive discussions with the Opposition, with Northern Ireland Members and with Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office about the pros and cons of our proposal. I am happy to say that, as a result of those deliberations, it has been decided that the extension of absent voting facilities which we have proposed for Britain should apply also to Northern Ireland. I am pleased that that is to the liking of all parts of the Committee and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I were able to play a part in bringing that about.
I should like to accept in principle—I am constantly advised by parliamentary counsel that there is always a better way of doing something than any mere hon. Member ever manages to put on the amendment paper—

Mr. Kaufman: I do not quarrel with what I think the Minister is about to say, but perhaps he, or one of his colleagues, will explain to us why, if parliamentary counsel are such superior draftspersons to the rest of us, the Government are having to use the Bill to make several more amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Mr. Mellor: I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman making a similar point when we were making our fourth attempt to get right certain arcane details of overseas forces disciplinary legislation. By the fourth attempt, I was beginning to run out of reasons.
I should like to accept in principle amendments Nos. 37, 41 and 43, which would remove any restrictions on the exercise of the full absent voting facilities in Northern Ireland. I undertake to bring forward on Report amendments to that end that meet with the approval of parliamentary counsel.
Another group of amendments among those under discussion would not make the arrangements in Great Britain and Northern Ireland the same, and I imagine that the right hon. Member for South Down will not wish to press those.
It is necessary to recognise, as I think we all do, that there is a bona fide reason for being troubled about how the new arrangements will work in practice, though we all hope that they will be trouble-free throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland. However, I hope that the Committee agrees that it would be appropriate to have provisions available in the legislation, which could readily be brought into force if, contrary to the expectations of Northern Ireland Members, there is substantial abuse.
It is important that, after appropriate consultation, the Government should have available a ready way of bringing into force restrictions that would enable the abuse to be corrected. Therefore, we shall wish later to table amendments to introduce a power for absent voters to be required to apply in person, with proof of identity. That power would be exercisable throughout the United Kingdom, or in any part of it. Of course, we hope that it would never be necessary to use it, but the power would be available and could be introduced by affirmative resolution.
7.15 pm
Secondly, we shall table an amendment to enable the Secretary of State to introduce special arrangements for Northern Ireland electors who would normally vote by post to vote in person at special polling stations under rules contained in a new schedule to the Bill. Again, we would not intend to introduce that power, which would also be subject to affirmative resolution, unless problems arose.
Those fail-safe devices have enabled us to assure our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that the mechanisms to which they rightly attach importance in other legislation will be maintained and that action will be taken speedily if our wishes and hopes are dashed and problems arise as a result of the widening of the availability of absent voting facilities.
The right hon. Member for South Down has also tabled amendments Nos. 47 to 49, and I think that I may be able to do more than he is asking for in those amendments. They cover a detailed subject, and I should like to go through the existing arrangements, the arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman proposes and the arrangements that we shall propose.
We are dealing with the proxy's right to apply for an absent vote at a particular election. He is exercising someone else's proxy, but cannot do it in person and, therefore, requires an absent vote.
The Bill gives proxies the right to vote by post at particular elections throughout the United Kingdom, but on a different basis for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Proxies in Northern Ireland may vote by post if they live in a different district ward from the voters who appointed them. British proxies may apply if they cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person.
The different treatment reflects the general difference in treatment of postal and proxy voting in the Bill. The amendments of the right hon. Member for South Down seek to allow all proxies throughout the United Kingdom to vote by post if they qualify under the present Northern Ireland position or under the Great Britain provision.
We wish to table on Report an amendment that will go further in the direction that the right hon. Member for South Down wishes to go. We shall introduce arrangements to allow all proxies throughout the United Kingdom to apply to vote by post at a particular election if they cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted to the electors who appointed them. There will be a common rule throughout the United Kingdom, which I think will be helpful.
In addition, our amendment will allow proxies to apply for an indefinite period if they live in a different area from the electors who appointed them. That is intended to meet the needs of overseas electors and service voters, who cannot find a proxy in their own constituency, but find one elsewhere. I hope that our re-think is acceptable to the right hon. Member for South Down and his colleagues.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful, as, I am sure, is the Committee, to the Under-Secretary for his careful and measured statement.
I refer first to what the hon. Gentleman dealt with last. In principle, his proposal on amendments Nos. 47 to 49 is self-evidently both simpler than, and preferable to, what would have been the result of our amendments. Subject, therefore, to being able to consider them when they are tabled subsequently, I welcome those proposals. There is no question of my seeking to move the amendments today.
In regard to the major matter, I am grateful both to the Government, and to all others who have concurred with the Government, for restoring the elector in Northern Ireland to the same position as his opposite number in Great Britain. I wish only to allude to the qualifications which the Under-Secretary of State set out. I am sure he would not expect my hon. Friends or myself to offer a verdict on those without having been able to consider them in actual terms. Should we, after considering them, feel it necessary to register our opposition to the principle behind them, as we registered our opposition to the principle of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill earlier this Session, I am sure that would not be taken in derogation of the major agreement at which we have so happily arrived on the main point of substance.
The proposal to build into a United Kingdom Act of Parliament the means to vary its application in a part of the United Kingdom by affirmative order is not in itself something which is attractive to representatives of Northern Ireland nor, I think, could it be attractive to members of the Committee as a whole. We act upon the principle that we deal with the franchise by way of legislation and in no other way, and there is a degree of inconsistency in building into such legislation the power to deal with the franchise otherwise than by legislation. That contradiction is inherent in the treaty which has been arrived at between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office.
I know that Her Majesty's Government are one and indivisible—that is confirmed by an eloquent gesture on the part of the Home Secretary. There is no gap between one Department and another into which a man could insert the point of a pin. Nevertheless, there seemd to be a trace rather of the voice of the Northern Ireland Office than of the Home Office in certain parts of what the Under-Secretary of State had to say on the amendments. My hon. Friends and I, while reserving the right to restate our objection when the proposals are brought forward and to put forward other considerations in relation to them when we can study them, are happy to accept the major assurance that has been given.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 10, line 12, at end insert
'and, in respect of a Parliamentary general election, that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted or likely to be allotted to him under the appropriate rules in any other Parliamentary constituency in which he is eligible to vote in Parliamentary elections.'.
The effect of clause 7 and other clauses is to widen eligibility for postal and proxy votes. That has been the theme of many of the debates on specific aspects. More people will be entitled to postal and proxy votes. In general, I support that principle. I have sought to qualify it only in particular respects, another of which will come up in the next group of amendments.
One area where the extension of postal votes has a bearing concerns those who have multiple registration in several constituencies. This is not the amendment on which I would seek to address myself to the general issue of whether people should be able to have votes in several parliamentary constituencies. The question that arises on this amendment is simply whether the ease of postal votes


will make it easier for them to transfer their votes at will between the several constituencies in which they may be registered.
When I addressed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary by letter on the broader issue of multiple registration, he replied on 14 May 1984—an illustration of how long these discussions have been going on—in these terms:
an elector registered twice may not, as you say in your seventh paragraph, 'transfer votes at will between constituencies'. In general, he has to vote in the constituency where he is physically present on polling day.
The effect of the extension of postal votes is to remove the presumption that in general the elector has to vote in the constituency where he is physically present on polling day. One cannot say that that general restraint applies to the person registered in several places when all he has to do to obtain a postal vote is to indicate that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted to him. There is no presumption there that he will have to vote in the place in which he is physically present.
The bearing of the extension of postal votes upon multiple registration will not merely be to make it easier, for example, for those who have holiday homes but whose place of work is some distance away, to register for a postal vote. It will also, of course, make it easier for their wives, and any other members of the family who lay claim upon that as one of the places in which they are registered to vote, to apply for postal votes. The test is so much broader than before that it will be relatively easy to indicate that there are reasonable grounds why one cannot vote at a particular polling station in a particular constituency.
I hope the Minister will consider this carefully. I submit that it was never part of his intention in widening postal votes to enable someone to say—I hope the Minister will not be distracted by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) because I am addressing a detailed point —that, because he is resident on polling day in another constituency in which he is also registered, he should thereby be entitled to a postal vote in the first of the constituencies in which he is registered. If someone is able to vote in another constituency in which he is registered, I do not think that the privilege of having the postal vote should be extended to him.
The object of extending postal votes was to make it easier for people who would not otherwise be able to vote to do so. The greatest motivation for extending postal votes was to assist people on holiday because many people have been disfranchised. That is not the case when someone has a house in the Lake District and a house in London and whose reason for not voting in the Lake District is that he has, for no particular reason, decided to be present in London, where he is also registered to vote.
I do not think that it was ever the Minister's intention to facilitate the switching of votes at will between several constituencies in which people are registered. If I did not think that it was not his intention I might be charging him with attempting to behave partially on the presumption that there might be more people owning houses in several constituencies who could thereby apply for votes at will between several constituencies. The decision to switch votes between constituencies can be highly political if one constituency is marginal and one has a safe majority for the party that the voter wishes to support. Multiple

registration confers upon some voters a much greater freedom to use their votes where they think they would be most effective.
We shall argue later whether other considerations justify that, but it is no part of the purpose of extending postal votes to make it easier for people to switch votes at will, otherwise the Minister would not have written to me as he did, saying:
In general a voter has to vote in the constituency where he is physically present on polling day.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider carefully the arguments I have put in support of the amendment. If we do not do something about this, the extension of postal votes will be put to a purpose for which it was not intended.

Mr. Winnick: I am not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). As he admitted, on most occasions he argues in favour of extending the right to postal votes. We must wonder whether the motive behind the amendment is self-interest on the part of the Liberal party and the SDP.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Has my hon. Friend noticed that SDP Members have not attended today's debate? Nor did they attend Second Reading.

Mr. Winnick: I expect that that is because there is no publicity mileage in today's debate. Therefore, SDP Members have no reason to be present. I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed privately agrees with me.
We should hesitate to remove a right unless we are persuaded that there is widespread abuse of it. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman could show such abuse, or give any good reasons for changing the present system. The categories of people who, under present regulations, are entitled to register in a number of constituencies are well known to hon. Members.
If students are at college when an election is held, currently they can apply for a postal vote at their home address on the ground they cannot get to the polling station because of their studies. Similarly, if an election is called when the college is on vacation and the student has, perhaps, found part-time employment, he can apply for a postal vote at his college address. I see no reason why that practice should not continue. There is certainly no evidence of widespread abuse.
I am surprised that the Liberal party wants to introduce such a restriction—it is somewhat illiberal. There must be far greater evidence of abuse before we agree to a change that will harm a number of people who currently register in a number of constituencies. At the end of the day, they are entitled to only one vote, and that is an important point to remember. Simply because they are registered in a number of constituencies does not give them more rights than other citizens. The hon. Gentleman is really objecting to the fact that someone can decide whether to vote in one constituency or another. Perhaps the Liberal party believes that that is not in its interests.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should talk to members of the Labour party in such areas as the Lake District, the coastal areas of eastern England, constituencies such as those formerly represented by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson),


Cornwall, Devon and many others where the Labour party has argued strongly that the right conferred by multiple registration is one that accrues especially to those who own several properties.

Mr. Winnick: I stand by my remarks. I believe that the Labour party will oppose the amendment. The hon. Gentleman objects to the fact that a person has a choice. I see no reason to change the present system.

Mr. William Powell: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has introduced a jarring note into our debate. For some hours we have proceeded on the basis of wide agreement among all parties on the principles and on how they should be put into effect by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has introduced a substantial and important measure of disagreement. It is a jarring note in what has otherwise been a most impressive and satisfactory discussion of the issues.
I have been conscious that the Rockingham Whigs have been in situ and I have been waiting for their contribution— almost trying to tempt them into a measure of disagreement. Alas, that has not happened.
Two factors underlie the amendment. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said in his admirable contribution, we are talking about the principle that a person should be allowed to cast only one vote. I am sure that that principle will find universal acceptance in the Committee. However, we live in a world where, because it is not possible to introduce substantial changes to our registers between the dates on which they are drawn up, it is necessary to allow people to register in more than one place. It is legitimate, even satisfactory, that, for example, students should vote either at their university or at their home. It would be wrong for the Bill to withdraw that right. Other groups are also exceptions to the general rule that persons should be registered in only one place. We should not seek to limit the opportunities of students and other people to register where it is convenient.
Wherever possible, voting should be in person. However, there must be exceptions to that, and we are enlarging those exceptions in the Bill. However, the fundamental principle should remain that people vote in person. If a massive number of people voted by post at every election votes might be cast fraudulently on behalf of people who were dead or who had left the country.
As I have, alas, had occasion to say from time to time, we live in a age where there is a more mobile population —people move house more often. The turnover on the electoral roll is, perhaps, higher than it is has been at any time. Estimates for the electoral roll about to come into operation in my constituency show that there has been a 12 per cent. turnover in the electorate since the last electoral roll came into operation a year ago. I should think that a turnover figure of between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. would be typical of what is happening in the southern part of the country.
There is an enormous movement of population going on all the time, with people moving not just from one street to another in the same community but from one part of the nation to another. People move from, say, Yorkshire to Northamptonshire; some who are dissatisfied with their representation in Northamptonshire move to Yorkshire, where they know that an admirable representation is available to them.
Until we make provision for people, when they move, to change their electoral registration from one constituency to another—we shall not do that in this measure—it is necessary to preserve those exceptions that exist, as outlined by the hon. Member for Walsall, North, in our law. They are necessary until we are able to develop what might otherwise be called a rolling register. The principal defect of the Bill is that we are not making provision for a rolling register, but I will not develop that theme now. I have no doubt that it would be wise for the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I do not see the need for the clause, which seems to deny one the freedom to vote, in the constituency of one's choice, one of our last rights which we value greatly—[Interruption.] People will be eligible to vote in only one nominated place instead of in more than one.
I say that because I am particularly concerned about those at university, who are, rightly, on the registers near their universities and colleges, and, equally, are on the registers in the constituencies of their parents homes. They should have the opportunity to nominate in which one they will vote.
I have read the amendment nine times and still find difficulty in understanding it. Our main concern should be the reliability and accuracy of the electoral register. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) pointed out, the new registers are due out shortly. Checking them carefully will be the best way of avoiding fraud—for example, the fraud of people claiming to represent people they do not represent.
I have previously alleged in Parliament that in certain constituencies people have tended to vote more than once. There is a motto, "Vote early, vote often." That concerns me greatly, and that is why I am in favour of giving people more opportunity to vote in person.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, many people move about the country. They should be entitled to vote in the constituency either in which they formerly lived or in which they pay rates. Whether or not rates are important in relation to the subject under discussion, a person who pays rates should have a vote.
We must do all that we can to avoid fraud being committed—of people voting more than once. To that end, amendment No. 39 is strangely worded and, I should have thought, unnecessary. It is unfair that university students should suddenly be denied the opportunity to vote in the constituencies in which they are based.
I have counted 36 constituencies with smaller majorities than mine.

Mr. William Powell: I hope that my hon. Friend has not left out Erdington and Wrexham.

Mr. Bruinvels: There is no doubt that, in such circumstances, the postal vote can play a vital part in deciding who and which party is returned.

Mr. Beith: Could that be why the speech which one usually hears from the hon. Member who normally occupies the place from which the hon. Gentleman is speaking — the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman)—is in precisely opposite terms to the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making? The hon. Member for Lancaster has frequently argued for the abolition of multiple registration.
Nothing in the amendment would deprive any student, or anybody else, of the right to register in more than one place. It would simply not grant the right to exercise a postal vote merely on the basis that the person concerned had to be in the other place in which he was also registered to vote.

Mr. Bruinvels: I cannot be expected to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), whether she speaks today or tomorrow, from wherever she speaks. I try my best to represent the views of my constituents, to put what I believe to be the right view from these Benches and to speak in accordance with my conscience.
The second part of that intervention by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was patronising. A university student in the position that I described should have the right to vote. Other than saying that, I shall not be led down what I regard as a suspicious road which does not bear on the subject under discussion.
We are discussing the whole issue of the right to vote and the need to ensure that an absent vote is used properly. Part of that right includes one's freedom to vote in whatever constituency one chooses. Our main concern must be to ensure that nobody votes more than once in any election. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I appreciate the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and others about the need to ensure that people who have legitimate cause to have addresses in different places should be allowed to vote. That includes students and those who, in the course of their work, have two genuinely different addresses at which they live. In that event, they should be permitted to vote in one of them.
7.45 pm
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in relation to the holiday home factor. In my constituency, people have holiday homes in some of the attractive seaside villages. We know of people—generally Conservatives, I suspect—who are resident in safe Tory seats elsewhere, but who register themselves as voters in the coastal villages of my constituency where their holiday homes are situated. To add insult to injury, they do not even turn up to cast their votes at the local polling station, but claim postal votes. In the event, most of them have wasted their time, because the boundary commissions have made that activity a futile gesture. However, it was an irritant in its time.
I do not see why legislation should allow people who have the privilege of a holiday home in another area to select tactically which is the most advantageous constituency in which to vote. That abuse goes on in some areas, including, no doubt, the west country and parts of Scotland and Wales.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has raised a legitimate point which should be distinguished from the aspect relating to students, who have a legitimate reason to live for a large part of the year at the location of their university. Accordingly, they should be able to vote there.

Sir John Farr: I regret what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said. He is a nice person and I have known him a long time. It is totally alien to his

nature and open character for him to move such a suspicious amendment. I know that the hon. Gentleman is tackling the problem in a hopeless way.
My constituency includes the eight or nine large halls of Leicester university at Oadby. A few elections ago there was thought to be a polling irregularity. The matter was taken to court, and eventually we went to the High Court. The agents of the other two parties and I, together with the county executive at the court, had the authority to inspect the electoral register for the wards in Oadby where the Leicester university students voted. At that time there were about 4,600 people on the register. Remarkably—this proves my confidence in the natural honesty of people in Leicestershire and proves also the error of the path taken by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed —although polling day was a Thursday and the university was in session, only one in 10 people on the roll voted in Harborough.
Students do not waste their votes. I had no way of telling, other than by talking to the students a week or two later, where their votes had gone. All those to whom I talked said they had gone home to vote. There was nothing suspicious about that. We had the privilege of examining the votes cast by the people on the register for the wards in Oadby, and only about one in 10 of the students voted in my constituency. Nationally, at least 70 per cent. of the students turned out to vote. Therefore, one can assume that 90 per cent. of those who voted did so from their homes or by postal vote.
I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has introduced this amendment. Apart from the sheer cost of establishing a centralised electoral register so that the checking of multiple registrations can be carried out effectively, I must point out that the whole idea verges on the fantastic and seems to come from never-never-land.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is typical of other Liberals I have met outside the House. They are all nice people and have the best of intentions, but they do not amount to much when it comes to the count.

Mr. Mellor: The evening becomes more entertaining as it goes on. The point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is perfectly legitimate. Whether multiple registration should be permitted is plainly an issue. The hon. Gentleman is addressing a consequence of multiple registration, but he is fully entitled to introduce into the argument the fact that it is consistent to object, as the hon. Gentleman and a number of others do, to multiple registration and to argue that the manifestation of multiple registration, which gives a voter a choice of constituencies in which to vote, should not be permitted. Although I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, I accept the internal logic of his argument and believe that he has a perfectly sensible point of view. One cannot say that the arguments go totally one way.
I believe that it is not inappropriate that we should stick by the test that has been established for so long—one may register in a constituency where the address has a substantial degree of permanence. It follows that some people will manage to establish, to the satisfaction of the ERO, that they have in more than one place an address that has a substantial degree of permanence. I am not sure whether many people are registered in more than two places, but I understand that there are objections to people being registered in more than one place. Some of those


objections are derived from principle and some from a light coating of principle and a feeling that party disadvantage will be involved. I understand that.
We have all been in politics for many years. We have all been introduced to party professionals and others who have myths about the effects of various electoral rules on various parties. On looking at the swings and roundabouts of the various people who are registered in more than one constituency, I dare say that there is no more likely to be party advantage in such registration than there is in having polling hours between 9 am and 10 pm, as Dr. David Butler asserts. I know that many people think that there are advantages and disadvantages.
I do not believe that a feasible or practical way has been devised to make it a practical proposition to prevent multiple registration. I do not think that multiple registration is objectionable, provided the substantial degree of permanence test is satisfied and provided that the person concerned exercises his franchise in only one place.
If people have a stake in a community they are entitled to exercise their vote. One would not need to live in East Lothian very long to realise that one had a sufficient stake in the community not to want to be represented by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). If I had a holiday home in his constituency — not being a landowner like him I do not run two holiday homes—I dare say that I would be driven irresistibly to that conclusion. It is difficult to establish tests.

Mr. Corbett: He has a flat in Putney.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman might have several flats in Putney. When one asks whether a person's degree of permanence in one place is greater than his degree of permanence in another place one introduces complications and justiciable issues of a kind that would make what should be the relatively simple process of registering to vote a difficult process.
Even if one accepts multiple registration, to hedge it with the type of restrictions that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seeks to impose in his amendment would be complicated. The hon. Gentleman made the point—I can see where that point springs from—that multiple registration could be seen as facilatating the exercise of a vote by a person who would not physically be in the constituency at the time of the election. It would be likely to facilitate his vote in an area where his degree of permanence was less than in the other place where he was registered. I understand why the hon. Gentleman said that. Surprisingly, the answer to that point was given by the hon. Member for East Lothian who, in an aside, made the revealing point that many people who have holiday homes in his constituency have the temerity not to be in the constituency on polling day when the dreadful opportunity arises to vote in person for him. Nevertheless, such people obtain a postal vote so that they can vote against him from a convenient distance where they are safe from his wrath. That reveals the essential truth of this situation.
It is not only in East Lothian where there is a particularly good reason to try to get a vote in elections, but in many other constituencies. Someone who was once on the register but is also registered at an address elsewhere can obtain a postal vote by applying for such a vote in the constituency in which he will not be on polling

day by stating that he will not be physically present on the grounds of change of residence. Technically speaking, he may still be resident at the other address, but if he applies for a postal vote on change of address grounds he is not required to produce any evidence that he is no longer resident at the qualifying address, and the registration officer has no means of investigating the matter. Therefore, in practice, registration officers grant postal voting applications on the grounds of change of residence on demand. That is the reason why I do not think that the change that we are making will, in practical terms, significantly increase the number of people who are registered in more than one place obtaining a postal vote to facilitate their voting in the constituency in which they will not physically be on polling day.
8 pm
In any event, if one accepts, as I do, that there is a case for multiple registration, one is not entitled to hang around the neck of that any inhibitions upon the individual casting his vote in the constituency where it seems to him, for a diversity of reasons, most appropriate to do so. Actually stopping him from doing so would be difficult. Let us say that, as well as having my residence in Putney, I borrowed some money from the hon. Member for East Lothian, who probably has a lot of it around ready for such needy causes, and purchased a holiday home on his estate. I suspect that there are some nice dells and fields on his estate where one could build a convenient cottage. Being an unpleasant person, I might be determined once I got there to vote against him, and I could be impeded by the fact that Parliament had had the lack of wisdom to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It would still be difficult for the returning officer in East Lothian to test my assertion that I was not capable of voting in Putney, where I was resident, and therefore had to have a postal vote for East Lothian.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accepts that if one is able to demonstrate that one is incapable of voting in person at either of the constituencies in which one is registered one is then entitled to decide in which one one would cast one's vote. How does the returning officer for East Lothian react? He is perhaps, also living on the hon. Gentleman's estate, is beholden to him and therefore does not wish to facilitate postal voting in the constituency because he realises that, as I am obviously an intelligent man, I shall not be casting my vote for the hon. Member. However, it would be difficult to show that I would not be capable of voting in Putney, whereas he might have a chance when dealing with East Lothian.
For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will not press his amendment.

Mr. Beith: I can relieve the Minister of one problem. Were he to obtain a delightful residence on the estate of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), he would find himself in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), not that of the hon. Member for East Lothian. The Minister might then feel even more strongly that he would wish to change his residence on party grounds. However, that is not what we are talking about.
This amendment, as I sought to argue at the beginning, is not an excuse for an argument about whether there should be multiple registration. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seemed to be saying that, but in doing so he overlooked the fact that, when the


Labour party gave its evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, it said, in words that brook of no misinterpretation:
The Labour party would support a change in the law to outlaw multiple registration.
The silence from the Labour Front Bench, which is occupied by one of the members of the Select Committee and one who listened to that evidence, seems to suggest embarrassment. No one wishes openly to contradict the hon. Member for Walsall, North, but his is clearly not the view of the Labour party. I agree with those hon. Members who say that it is difficult to know which Labour party one is speaking about. Walworth road was clear in its view, and this view is supported by at least one occupant of the Opposition Front Bench.
The Minister produced one genuine technical objection to the amendment, which I recognise. That is the legitimate change of residence case, which gives rise to a technical difficulty if the amendment is passed in its present form. Where I do not agree with him in the change of residence case is in his apparent implication that the sort of people to whom he referred would readily use a change of residence basis to secure the vote that they wanted if they were otherwise precluded by this amendment. He implied that people would keep saying that they had changed their London home to their country residence one year and back again the next, each time so that they could obtain a vote. Conservative Members are at one stage saying that we are dealing with people who are scrupulous, fair and honest and the next minute that we are dealing with people who are imagined to engage in the most dubious procedures.
There is nothing suspicious about the wording of the amendment, which sets out a test to be put to the person applying for a postal vote. Like many other things in the test for a postal vote in the Bill, it places a considerable onus and trust on the applicant and gives the returning officer fairly limited opportunities to check what is being set before him. This is the case in general when applying for a postal vote, which is why I shall seek to probe the matter in the next group of amendments, because we are taking a great deal on trust.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman will find in the regulations that the returning officer will have more power to refuse and a better basis for doing so, because the reason why a person states that he will not be available to vote in person on the day will have to be clearly stated, and it will have to be countersigned by another person. We have yet to determine who that person should be and whether there should be any limit on those who can countersign. For the first time, there is a penal sanction. People will put themselves at risk of appearing in court if they say something that is demonstrably false.

Mr. Beith: The Minister is unlocking his treasure chest in advance. These are the jewels that should be brought out when we come to consider on a later amendment what sort of counter-signature should feature in the Bill or the regulations. In these electoral matters, people are taken on trust to some extent and are asked to make certain assertions. That is the only reasonable way to proceed.
Conservative Members have several times suggested that there would be no way in which one could check on the extent of multiple registrations, or about applications for postal votes from those registered in more than one place. If that is so, they were talking glibly about dual

voting. If there is no way to check anything in multiple registration, there is no way to establish that somebody is voting twice. That is the weakness in our system, and the Minister needs to pay some attention to what should be done about this.
In a number of parts of the country, attempts are made by the parties to establish whether voting twice is taking place, but the process is difficult. I think that the parties have gone further than the formal machinery of the returning officers has done to check whether double voting is taking place. I believe that double voting occurs very rarely. I should be surprised to find that it happens at all. However, we do not know, and the absence of any way to check some of these things is not something that I would hold up as a virtue of the system or as something from which we should step back and on which we should admit defeat and accept that nothing should be done. Dual voting is the kind of electoral offence against which we should have some protection and some check.
I have been criticised for talking about this amendment in rather broad partisan terms. Hon. Members have short memories. I opened the debate in the narrowest sense and sought to present a logical case about the way in which postal voting should be circumscribed. Scarcely an hon. Member who has spoken has not said something containing at least as much partisan interest in the matter as anything that I might have expressed. One has only to go to some of the constituencies that I know and see the extent to which potential second-home postal voters are circulating to encourage their application for a second vote to realise that there is substantial partisan interest in this.
Both the Conservative and Labour parties, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, accepted that there was a problem and that multiple registration should be ended. We should confront multiple registration when we come to that part of the Bill which deals with it. Postal voting is a narrower issue. There is a technical objection to the amendment but it could be overcome by redrafting.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 16, at end insert—
'(d) the applicant has supplied to the returning officer a certificate of the relevant circumstances which has been countersigned by a Member of Parliament, Justice of the Peace, Minister of Religion, lawyer, bank officer, established civil servant, school teacher, police officer, doctor or a person of similar standing known personally to the applicant for at least two years.'.
This is a probing amendment to enable the Minister to tell us more about the regulations. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a system of countersignature. The amendment sets out the people who should be allowed to do the countersigning. The list is familiar because it is the same as that for signing passport applications. Hon. Members must have signed many such applications. It is by no means the end of the road in terms of what should be in the bill or the regulations and it is probably best to deal with the matter in regulations.
The Bill amends the "prescribed requirements" for an absent vote. Schedule 1(7) provides:
Provision as to the evidence which shall or may be required, or be deemed sufficient or conclusive evidence, in connection with a person's application to vote by proxy or to vote by post as elector or as proxy.
The new requirements may include countersigning, but we do not yet know how extensive the change will be.
It is necessary to hedge postal voting with some checks and limitations for all the reasons already advanced. A


postal vote is not as satisfactory in terms of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Ballot) Act as a vote cast at a polling station in a ballot booth. A postal vote can be less secret than a vote cast in a polling station and the voter is open to pressure and intimidation. Hon. Members will have been concerned to ensure that old people can vote in old people's homes or their own homes, free of pressure and prying. It is important that postal votes should be given only when necessary. I support the extension of postal votes to holidaymakers, because the case is fully made out. The case for allowing people to exercise their franchise outweighs the case for keeping the vote in the polling stations, which, in other circumstances, should be our priority. The secrecy of the ballot can best be assured in the polling station.
When we extend the postal vote, we must use some restraint and ensure that those involved genuinely satisfy the requirements. I tabled the amendment to discover the extent to which the Government intend to ensure that and to give the Minister the opportunity to explain.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tempts us down some interesting highways and byways. I am as concerned about this problem as other hon. Members are about other matters.
At least two significant problems arise from the wording of the amendment. Clause 7 provides:
the registration officer shall grant the application if—

(a) he is satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be … such that …
(b) he is satisfied that the applicant is or will be registered …
(c) the application meets the prescribed requirements."

That is an acceptable form of words, but the amendment suggests the inclusion of paragraph (d) which deals with a different principle. The amendment alters the grounds for the acceptance of the test, which is made contingent on a certain category of person providing authorisation for the person applying for a proxy or postal vote. We must look at the categories of people carefully. We are, after all, talking about that most important issue in our democratic procedures—an individual's entitlement to vote in an election. Few issues are more important. We must therefore be satisfied that the mechanism which gives people the vote is above and beyond all reasonable doubt and suspicion.
Members of Parliament are the first to be listed in the amendment. Hon. Members will find it difficult to quibble at that, although an element of vested interest exists. In many, if not most, cases the Member of Parliament willbe authorising a vote for an individual who will be voting for him. One could, therefore, cast a passing doubt on that category, although I doubt whether I should carry many of my hon. Friends with me.

Mr. William Powell: Does my hon. Friend recall a celebrated criminal case some years ago when a Member of Parliament was deceived into countersigning an application? He had no knowledge of the true circumstances, and his good name was abused. That led to a long criminal trial and a substantial number of years in prison for an hon. Member.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that highlights the difficulties. Many other difficulties

could arise. It would be a brave Member who refused to authorise such an application, because of the difficulties in which that might place him subsequently, and the effect that it might have on potential supporters if it got around that he had impugned the integrity of a person applying for a postal vote by refusing to authorise it.
We can let that category pass unchallenged because it is so well and long established. The same applies to justices of the peace, who are above and beyond reproach in such matters.
The next category, ministers of religion, causes problems. I shall tread carefully, because I do not want to cause offence. The title "minister of religion" has become broad and generous. Many people who style themselves as ministers of religion today would not in the past have been accepted as such. I shall not name individual religions or sects, but the title "minister of religion" is not a sufficient safeguard to ensure no abuse. I regret that many people style themselves as ministers of religion. How would the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed satisfy himself that a person so styled genuinely came within that category?
We can accept the category of lawyer without too much argument. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not, but I am sufficiently generous to accept the category of lawyer.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman was disposing of ministers of religion. How does he square that with the present requirements for signatures for passports? He seeks to gloss over the classification of lawyers. Is he asking the Committee to accept that lawyers cannot be deceived?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to digress, and I should be reluctant to do that given the pressure of time. However interesting it might be to discuss the authorisation of passports, I am sure that I would quickly be reminded that we are discussing the authorisation of applications for proxy and postal votes. Therefore, I shall not be tempted to follow the hon. Gentleman.
We run into the most fascinating potential difficulties over the term "bank officer." I believe that I am correct when I say that someone could legitimately and properly leave school at the age of 16 and work for a bank. Many young people do. It is an honourable position, but it gives rise to the possibility that, under the terms of the amendment, someone who was of voting age—over 18 —could have his application for a postal or proxy vote authorised by a 16-year-old who had only just started working for a bank but who would be properly styled a "bank officer." That category is unacceptable. The fact that the amendment is loosely cast invalidates it.
Similarly, there are difficulties with some of the other categories, but I shall not detain the Committee by going through them in more detail.

Mr. Beith: Is it not apparent that the hon. Gentleman and I have done a service to the nation if we have brought to the notice of the Home Office Minister with responsibility for passports the glaring deficiencies in the arrangements by which passports are now authorised?

Mr. Forth: Indeed. What has been said this evening may well give rise to significant legislation and the


opportunity to consider those matters in greater detail. I am reluctant to do that as I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
The categories that I have described are sufficient to invalidate the amendment. The final category has the effrontery to refer to
a person of similar standing known personally to the applicant for at least two years.
One is driven to ask: of similar standing to whom? Is it of similar standing to the 16-year-old bank officer, to the extremely dubious minister of some religion or other—of which kind is not specified—or is it a person of similar standing to the Member of Parliament who may have a vested interest in giving a vote to someone whose application may not be the most correct and proper?
The amendment is ill-thought-out, ill-considered and poorly drafted. To accept it would not do justice to the Bill. I therefore beg the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Barron: It was interesting to listen to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) about the list. I am sure that he could have gone on to the second half of the list and explained the categories in which anomalies might arise in relation to the countersigning of applications for proxy and postal votes. What I find interesting—this is something that the hon. Gentleman missed — is that the categories have something in common. They are middle class, and perhaps potential supporters of the so-called alliance parties.
Coming from a sensible Socialist area of south Yorkshire, I find it amazing that hon. Members have not considered the type of people who are likely to want to have countersignatures on applications for postal and proxy votes. In my constituency, they would normally be elderly people. They would look around and ask who were the responsible people in their lives and areas who could accept — the further responsibility of ensuring that application forms were countersigned. I am amazed that we can have a list of middle-class, salaried people and not consider matrons of old people's homes. They are more responsible, more receptive and more likely to be readily available to sign such forms.
The list that has been presented to us in the amendment includes a Member of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members and the vast majority of the electorate know that Members of Parliament for areas such as Berwick-upon-Tweed and Rother Valley in south Yorkshire normally live a large part of their lives—when Parliament is sitting—hundreds of miles from their constituencies. The likelihood of people being able to contact Members of Parliament is limited. The same can be said for many other people on the list. If a bank officer is interpreted to mean a bank manager as opposed to a 16-year-old bank clerk, one would need an appointment to see a bank officer or a manager in my local bank to get an application form countersigned.
Justices of the peace are on the list. There are some lay magistrates in my constituency, and a knock on the door would be sufficient to get them to sign an application form, but not everyone knows who the magistrates are. The people who normally do know are not those who see them to have forms countersigned.
School teachers, police officers and doctors are included. People go to see a doctor about their medical needs. They do not want to have to think about seeing the local family doctor to have a form for a vote in a

forthcoming election countersigned. The amendment just gives a host of job descriptions which do not really fit people's needs.
I go further than the matron in the old people's home. The signature could be that of a warden of sheltered accommodation — flats or bungalows. Because of the cuts in the housing support grant, in my constituency we have only been building flats and bungalows for old people to release other housing. They have a warden to look after them, and wardens are responsible people.

Mr. Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend define what an "established civil servant" is? Does he have to have so many grades on a Civil Service scale or is he something else? How does anyone know who is an "established civil servant"?

Mr. Barron: That is a fair comment. I cannot answer that question. An "established civil servant" leaves a great many questions about who or what he is. It would be strange to think of accepting the amendment.
Wardens of sheltered accommodation in my constituency are not professional people. They do not have a salary, which is normally one of the marks of a professional person. They are paid weekly and they are on low incomes. It would be difficult to fit them into the category of "a person of similar standing". That means different things to each right hon. and hon. Member. Therefore, we need to ask the Minister to clarify what provisions he believes should be included in the regulations with regard to countersigning.
Where I come from, and in my constituency, one of the people in the community who is of very high standing, and who looks after many things, is the trade union official. I should have thought that he was an obvious person to be included in any list of those who could countersign the form. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that this was a probing amendment. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has not probed far at all in regard to those who should countersign voting forms.

Mr. Gary Waller: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already said that consideration is being given to the precise form that regulations should take, the category of persons who should be entitled to be countersignatories and the circumstances in which they should be able to sign an application for an absent vote. Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I understand the reasons why such provisions should be in regulations, although I must confess that I have some doubts about always leaving such important matters to regulations. I would be much happier in many ways if such important issues could be contained within the Bill itself. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance when he replies.
The present absent voting provisions have grave defects. Serious abuses occur. One should be concerned about the fact that such abuses might take place on a wider scale, simply because many more people will be able to apply for an absent vote in future, as everyone agrees. In those circumstances, it is important to build in the best possible safeguards. I understand the difficulties of drawing more closely the circumstances in which somebody should be able to apply for an absent vote,


bearing in mind the difficulties of defining holidays and so on. The best safeguard that we can have lies in the category of persons who should be able to countersign. In clause 7 as it stands, it might appear that we are providing absent votes on demand. Many party agents and, indeed, many electoral registration officers who have seen the clause have assumed that we are providing for absent votes on demand.
The possibility for abuse is particularly great in elections where the turnout is especially low. The sort of elections that spring immediately to mind are local government elections. We are extending the provision to them. At those elections, the turnout is sometimes as low as 30 per cent. Many of those who would be prepared to turn out in a parliamentary election, and have a commitment to a particular party, are not prepared to turn out at a local government election. Party activists going round the houses could say to people who said that they had a commitment to that party but doubted whether they would bother to go out and vote, "If you are in some doubt as to whether you will go out and vote, why not fill in an application for a postal vote? It is very easy. You are entitled to it and it will save you the trouble of going out to vote." Even those who are keen to vote could see the advantages of exercising their right to vote at home. As many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), said on Second Reading, once we get away from the secrecy of the polling booth, the validity of the vote falls into doubt. There is a big question mark over the validity of the poll.
Therefore, we must first define as carefully as we can the "relevant circumstances", to use the terms of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I should like the "relevant circumstances", to be defined reasonably closely. I should like the countersignatory to confirm not only that the applicant is who he claims to be, but that the circumstances in which he is applying for an absent vote are genuine and justified.
Who is the countersignatory to be? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to some of the difficulties that arise in relation to the wide range of categories laid down in the amendment. I believe that it is probably right to limit the countersignatories to justices of the peace. The reason is simply that when they take up that office they accept certain responsibilities. We all know that there are JPs who are willing to countersign various applications, for reasons that we would not consider justified. Some JPs are much more true than others to the principles to which they swore when they took up that office. Just as JPs are specified for various purposes in the Representation of the People Act 1983, it is right that in this part of the Bill they should be the ones who have to countersign.
I hope that careful consideration will be given to that aspect, because it is one of the most important parts of the Bill. I also hope that at the end of the day nobody will be able to claim, as many people believe at present, that we are allowing absent voting on demand.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I believe that an absent vote is a right, but it must be established. It is not an automatic right. Therefore, having counter-signatures, in whatever provision requires it, is correct. I should have thought that

the initial provisions of the Bill made greater sense than the list supplied to us by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Immediately the list is in front of us, it is apparent that it is not exhaustive—

Mr. Forth: It is exhausting.

Mr. Bruinvels: Indeed, it is exhausting.
It is apparent that trade union officials should have been on the list, as well as matrons of old people's homes and so on. There is no doubt that it could be extended. If there is to be a list, I should prefer it to be returned to the original provisions. I have looked carefully at the provisions, and I must ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed why the right is given to some people and not to others. Why should this be an elitist list, as it is in a way? The list includes a Member of Parliament, a justice of the peace and a minister of religion, compared with a bank officer and a schoolteacher. It is a strange cross-section of people.
I do not necessarily accept that it is a middle-class cross-section of people, but it is strange to link an established civil servant with a doctor. It is particularly amusing, on this day of all days, that under the proposed list we are looking for a civil servant to countersign. I understood that Clive Ponting was an established civil servant, and does not like signing anything. For that reason alone, it is a strange provision.
A minister of religion is included in the list. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to that. All that I would say is that some ministers do not know the truth, for example, about the virgin birth or other points. One must wonder whether they are the right people. I have great confidence in the medical profession. Its members might be around for many years and know the person since birth.

Mr. William Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to express great confidence in the medical profession, but has he noticed that in the drafting a distinction is drawn between a civil servant and an established civil servant, but no such distinction is drawn between doctors? The words "established doctor" do not appear. When he refers to doctors, no doubt my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that the doctor will not have to produce any evidence that he is a duly qualified doctor, if that meaning is to be attached to the word "established".

Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no evidence that the doctor is established and no evidence that he is a medical person. He could be a doctor of letters or a doctor of law.

Mr. Bermingham: Or Dr. Death.

Mr. Bruinvels: I should not like him to sign my application. That could be the kiss of death.
The idea of having to compare one group with another is abhorrent. The definition of
a person of similar standing
is another peculiar way of trying to assess what sort of person can countersign an application. Surely our main purpose must be to ensure that those who want to vote in their absence are legitimately witnessed in their application and their vote. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that the provisions as itemised in detail, without the amendment, make far more sense than the details set out in the amendment. For that reason alone, I cannot support the amendment.

Sir John Farr: I heard most of the debate on the amendment before I left the Chamber. I had the opportunity of listening to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as he moved the amendment. As I said after he had moved the previous amendment, it is a pity to see him knocking around with a suspicious attitude to everyone. He seems to be suggesting that everyone must be vetted by one of the persons listed in the amendment.
Until the hon. Gentleman introduced amendment No. 39, the debate had been one of relative harmony and mutual good humour. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to introduce an acid-like amendment. It is even more regrettable that he has now introduced another similar amendment. To my simple way of thinking, it suggests that the Liberal party does not trust anyone without having him vetted, whatever he does, if electoral practice is involved. That is extraordinary. It is not the right way to attract new voters to an up-and-coming party.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been following the debates on the Bill very carefully. If he had been following them with care, he would have noticed that until a relatively late stage in our proceedings it was the Government's view that no one in Northern Ireland should have the extended absent voting rights given to him that are proposed for those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government have conceded, as a result of argument, discussion, and perhaps a little pressure, that it would be reasonable to make the extension. Both sides of the Committee have been considering ways in which it would be reasonable to extend postal voting and the conditions that should be attached to the extensions.

Sir John Farr: I was about to address myself to the qualifications of those who are supposed to pry into the qualifications of a voter. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has said, a minister of religion is a rather nebulous creature at this moment. If he were a bishop, I would say definitely that he would not be an acceptable object. Let us suppose that the minister is of lower standing than a bishop. Does a minister in the Church of Scientology count as a minister of religion? Has the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed thought out the consequences of his rather vague amendment, which could have the most appalling results if it were enacted?
As for the reference to
a person of similar standing"—
well, really! With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), that would provide a remunerative lawyer's paradise. With all respect to my hon. Friend, he could spend days and weeks at someone's expense arguing what that provision means. I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has not thought out the amendment carefully. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will take fairly short steps in throwing it out.

Mr. Mellor: I would not want the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to feel hard done by. He has tabled an amendment that sets out the qualifications for those who should countersign applications for passports and he is entitled to do that as a basis for discussing the countersignatory arrangements for absent voting. When he returns home this evening to his

Bournvita and a pamphlet on site value rating, I would not want him to feel depressed by the thought that he alone threw a spanner in an otherwise harmonious works. I say that to him from the bottom of my heart. He should not take this too hard.
Coming to business, the fact is that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said—I appreciate that he was putting the point of view of others and not his own—this is not a part of the Bill that offers absent voting on demand. Clause 7 deals with a unified requirement, so that one test has to be satisfied instead of a mass of anomalous tests. The ERO has to be satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be such, or are likely to be, that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person. A form will have to be completed to set out the reasons for that. We think that the ERO should have the benefit of seeing the signature of the individual making the application, which will be written in the knowledge that it will be a criminal offence to make a false declaration. We think that there should also be a countersignature. That is my view and I do not think that anyone is arguing against that. The issue that troubles me is whether there should be any restriction based on employment, or some other test, on the sort of person who should be able to act as a countersignatory.

Mr. Beith: Several of the Minister's hon. Friends, notably the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), seemed to be arguing that there should be no countersignature. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that argument.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, I think that the primary intention of my hon. Friends might have been to send the hon. Gentleman home to his Bournvita and a pamphlet on site value rating. Perhaps they were not necessarily concerned to torpedo for ever the idea that he has put before the Committee. It is possible that they were arguing that it was damned by its association with the hon. Gentleman. If the argument had been presented to them cold, without them knowing that the hon. Gentleman had advocated it, their attitude might have been different. That is merely idle speculation on my part.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will appreciate that I have been taking his argument seriously. Indeed, I have defended his contribution to thought. Passport application forms require the signatures of anomalous categories and the requirements have been endorsed by successive Governments as being those which should be satisfied before passports may be obtained. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for having moved the amendment. The Government take the view in the White Paper that the qualifications of the countersignatory should be registration as an elector and someone who is known to the applicant, but not a member of his family, who is prepared to certify that to the best of his knowledge—there is a penal sanction attached to that — the circumstances described in the application form are true.
We opened up the matter rather more widely in the absent voting consultation paper by suggesting that the qualification should be further tightened by limiting it to certain categories of person. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has mentioned a possible way in which that could be achieved. Further restrictions might have been produced, for instance, by limiting the number


of applications which an elector can sign. Of course, a medical practitioner would be exempted from those requirements.
I have listened to the debate with an open mind, because it is true that regulations will be made in due course. That is the normal practice, and not a sinister recent manifestation of a desire to keep things out of the statute book, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley suggested. There will be consultations with the parties and the local authority associations before regulations are introduced, so nothing that we say tonight is conclusive.
In so far as I have listened to the arguments and they have had an impact on me, I believe that the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was especially effective. He asked why the warden of an old person's home or of sheltered accommodation could not be a signatory. I hope that I have not damned the hon. Gentleman's career for ever by praising him. If I have, I shall withdraw my remarks immediately and attack him, so that his status and credibility might be restored.
He also mentioned trade union officials. We must recognise that any list of categories, even one as well hallowed by time and experience as the list for passport applications, is open to anomalies and does not withstand much cross-examination. On that basis, I shall leave the debate, having invited the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to withdraw his amendment, thinking that it will be difficult, and possibly undesirable, to insert any qualifications beyond the fact that the countersignatory must be a registered elector, known to the applicant, but not a part of his family, and prepared to make the required certification.

Mr. Bermingham: I rise immediately to defend my hon. Friend and office sharer the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who raised an important point. Perhaps eventually the qualifications of countersignatories will be introduced in regulations. The Minister may consider that that matter should be brought back to the House, because it would be an opportunity to tidy up some of the anomalies in other countersignatory cases, for example in passport applications, which can give rise to much hardship and nuisance.

Mr. Mellor: That matter would have to be considered separately. As to the regulations, proper consultation will be carried out with the parties and the local authority associations. Therefore, nothing can be concluded tonight. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed simply wished to have a demonstration of the Government's thinking on the matter. The more that I have thought about it, having flirted with the idea of a restricted list, the more I believe that the proposition in the White Paper is probably the best one.

Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend consider whether the category should be limited to justices of the peace, who are established in the Representation of the People Act 1983 as the only people who can sign applications for several purposes? If one said that any elector in a constituency who was not related to the applicant could countersign his application, in practical terms that might become a case of absent votes on demand, although it may not be so in theory. There would be no realistic way in which a returning officer could check whether an application was justified.

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has moved back to another point, but perhaps I should deal with it. If the applicant is prepared to assert that the reason why he is not at his home address is that he is away on business, there is no penal sanction attached to that. One might just as well say in this case that, if someone is prepared to tell a big enough lie, no electoral registration officer can deal with him. We propose a much more formalised method of application which requires someone else to join in the deception, if there is a deception, and we are introducing a penal sanction. I do not agree that it will create absent voting on demand. We are making absent votes properly available to those who need them. There will always be some abuse, as there is with the present system.
As to my hon. Friend's point about justices of the peace, I believe that other hon. Members thought that that would be too restrictive, as do I. We must be practical about this matter. Although it is true that prudent people —the wise virgins who trim their wicks appropriately, as the biblical injunction states—will have made their arrangements for postal votes well before the whistle blows for an election, many people will not — [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have offended the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) by getting my biblical quotation wrong. The election will be called probably no more than three weeks and two days before the polling date, and postal votes will close about two weeks and three days before that date. There will be barely a week in which to make all the arrangements for postal votes. If all the people who will be away on holiday at the time of the election will frantically make arrangements, I wonder whether only justices of the peace could cope with it.
That is another reason why we must have the courage of our convictions and accept that the arguments advanced by some of my hon. Friends, and especially well advanced by the hon. Member for Rother Valley, are conclusive. We should not try to create categories other than that the countersignatory must be an adult elector who is not related to the applicant.

Mr. Beith: The debate has brought out some interesting matters, including a rather sharp division of opinion in the Conservative party. Some Conservative Members believe that there should be a much narrower category of people allowed to countersign an application for an absent vote—narrower than the category that I advanced in my purely probing amendment, and narrower than the Government considered at an earlier stage.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) suggested that it should be limited to justices of the peace. I have not so far detected any support for so restricted a category. However, other Conservative Members have given the impression that a countersignature should not be necessary. Unusually, I find myself midway between those two extremes of Tory thinking.
Absent voting must be extended with some care, for the reasons that I advanced earlier, and for the reasons which led the Government originally to have doubts about the extent to which they would make available a provision for absent voting. Therefore, a countersignature system must be necessary, and my thinking is moving along much the same lines as the Minister's on this matter.
The provision described by the Minister, which will feature in the regulations, together with penal sanctions, may be sufficient for this purpose, but the debate has


brought out something else. Among the Government's supporters, the present arrangements for the approval of passport applications are viewed with something bordering on contempt. They are certainly viewed as an inadequate model for fundamentally important provisions, such as the right to an absent vote.
Those views have even more worrying implications, because the control of passports is related to the prevention of terrorism and to many other major issues with which the Home Office is concerned. The fact that this brief examination has displayed the inadequacies, as a model for absent voting, of the present list of people who can authorise passport applications demonstrates that the Minister will have to consider those matters as well. It would appear that there is no support in the Conservative party for the present arrangements for issuing passports. What we should do now when people come to us with their inevitable passport applications I am not sure.
9 pm
The arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) about who might be on a limited list, to use the Government's favourite phrase, apply equally to both issues. The passport list is out of date and does not provide an adequate model. I agree that wardens in old people's homes and wardens in sheltered accommodation would be appropriate for countersignature purposes. They are already sometimes involved in obtaining postal votes for people on medical grounds. There is no reason, therefore, why they should not also be involved in this part of the process. I agree with what the hon. Member for Rother Valley said about the extended categories that ought to be included for all of these purposes. If there is to be a list, it is logical that it should be the same for one Home Office purpose as for another.
On balance, the Minister is probably on the right lines in assuming that the more open attestation provided by an elector to whom the person is known is probably adequate for the purpose; but an element of danger still exists, and I am surprised and concerned that some hon. Members seem to be unaware that there is a problem. I acquit one or two Conservative Members of that charge. However, those who assume that the extension and ease of application for postal votes would create no difficulties do not understand what led to the Government having doubts in the first place about its extension to Northern Ireland. As hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have mentioned, the problems there may be greater in scale, but they could arise on this side of the water. It is for that reason that the Labour party has been more cautious and unwilling to extend voting rights than either the alliance or the Government. That fact is not recognised by some Conservative Members.
I recognise that the Minister is putting forward fairly sensible proposals. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. William Powell: It would be wrong to allow clause 7 to pass without noting that it introduces a most important change, which fortunately has proved uncontroversial. By means of this clause we are extending the right to vote to people who are on holiday. A very important change is being made to our electoral law. I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. and learned

Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State upon clause 7. The passing of this clause will mark a tremendous improvement in our electoral law.

Sir John Farr: The heading to clause 7 relates to the absent vote at a particular election and to the absent voters list. I wrongly put down an amendment relating to holidaymakers under clause 6. Holidaymakers are fully covered in clause 7. At the last election it troubled me greatly that one came across people who had lost their vote, either through their own ill health or through the ill health of a close relative. The Committee will say that we cannot cater for ill health or for the fact that somebody has suffered an unfortunate bereavement and therefore cannot be expected to leave the place of death or the family home to register his vote elsewhere.
At the last election I came across several instances of people whose close relatives were seriously ill. I have in my files a letter from one gentleman who had to spend his time continuously at the bedside of his wife. She had been taken gravely ill at short notice. He could find nobody to take his place in order to allow him to go and vote. I promised this gentleman and all the other people who wrote to me that when the Bill came before the House I should seek to introduce what I call an emergency clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has pointed out many of the omissions from the Bill. It does not contain an emergency clause. I believe that there should be a longstop of that kind to cover a human tragedy. I should have liked to see an emergency clause, so that all the carefully laid plans of my hon. Friend in clause 7 could not be set at naught overnight. I should have liked to see an emergency clause so that we could do our best to bring some form of voting justice to those who, through no fault of their own, are deprived of the vote.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In May 1983 the Leicester Mercury launched a campaign throughout Leicestershire calling for a change in the law to bring about absent voting and to give holidaymakers the right to vote.
Clause 7 is welcome on behalf of my constituents and others throughout the country. The campaign that was launched in Leicester was a great success. Democracy can now be seen to have an effective part to play. Many people will now use the opportunity to vote, and I look forward to seeing increased Conservative majorities in many constituencies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

MANNER OF VOTING

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Waller: Part III of schedule 1 deals with absent voting at municipal elections in the City of London. This is the only part of a complicated Bill which is related to an area which has quite different elections from the rest of the country. It is important that hon. Members should be aware that the City of London corporation, a body much involved with pomp and tradition, is a significant planning authority. If one considers the number of electors in the


city, it is almost the most important planning authority in the country. Enormously important decisions are made by that authority. Following the abolition of the GLC it will become even more important. It will become a unitary authority.
Why is absent voting in the City of London so important? It is particularly important because many of those who are entitled to vote in elections to the City corporation do not reside or work in the city. Any partnership which has premises in the City of London can provide for each of those partners a vote for every ward in the city in which those premises are situated.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As a freeman of the City of London myself, I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is inequitable that a partner in, for instance, a firm of chartered accountants may nominate certain wards in which to vote and thereby prolong an unfair voting practice.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend points to an important issue. Many firms have offices in several different wards. One well-known firm of chartered accountants with approximately 65 partners situated in various parts of the United Kingdom has premises in four different wards in the City of London. Many firms with more than 100 partners have offices in the city. I refer to partnerships, because companies are not able to endow their directors with votes. Sixteen firms have premises in more than one ward. The only requirement to qualify for a vote is that one should pay £10 in rates per annum. Therefore, one could have an entitlement to a vote in the City of London elections if the firm for which one worked had a car parking space.
The issue becomes more serious when one realises that some wards have as many as several thousand electors and others have as few as 30. It has been calculated that, by the expenditure of approximately £12,500 in the payment of rates in one year in carefully selected wards, it would be possible to take control of the City of London corporation and be responsible for all the important decisions made in that area. I do not suggest that that will happen in a conspiratorial way, but sooner or later doubts will arise about elections in the City of London for the reasons that I have put forward. It is therefore important, before it is too late—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it a little difficult to relate the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to schedule 1 to the Bill, which is fairly narrow and technical. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can link his remarks to schedule 1.

Mr. Waller: A large proportion of those who vote in the City of London do so by post. As schedule 1, part III, is concerned with postal votes in the City of London, I consider this to be an important part of the Bill which has so far attracted too little attention. I hope that, by speaking tonight, I may have started an extended debate.

Dr. Marek: I support the sense of what the hon. Gentleman said about the City of London. I hope that some hon. Members will turn their attention to this matter, and table appropriate amendments on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 11

OFFENCES AS TO DECLARATIONS, ETC.

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 15, line 34, leave out
offence
and insert
illegal practice".

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 80, in page 15, leave out lines 36 and 37 and add
guilty of an illegal practice".

Mr. Bermingham: I suggest that we do not discuss amendment No. 80 because a penal sanction must be made under clause 11.
Amendment No. 79 would bring matters into line with other provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity. I am happy to tell him that anybody who makes a false declaration in order to become an overseas voter will commit an offence under section 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Section 61 offences are punishable as illegal practices and the penalties would include disqualification from voting. I think that the hon. Gentleman already has what he seeks.

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 79.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Marek: I hope that, when postal votes are checked at a count, the returning officer will be able to compare the signature on the postal vote with the original signature on the application form.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

DEPOSIT BY CANDIDATES AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Sir John Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 16, line 6, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£500'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 70, in page 16, line 6, leave out '£1,000' and insert
`£500 or such amount as the Secretary of State may by order determine; no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
No. 52, in page 16, line 9, leave out 'one twentieth' and insert 'one tenth'.
No. 85, in page 16, line 9, leave out 'one twentieth' and add 'three fortieths'.
New clause 7 —Abolition of deposit and increase in number of nominations—
'(1) In Schedule 1 of the principal Act, paragraph 9 ("Deposit") shall cease to have effect;
(2) In paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 1 in the principal Act, for the word "eight" there shall be substituted "at least one hundred".'.
New clause 8—Nomination papers—
'In Schedule 1 to the principal Act paragraph 7(2) shall cease to have effect.'.


New clause 11—Exemption from deposit—
'In Schedule 1 to the Principal Act (Parliamentary elections rules shall be added a new rule 1013
(8A) A candidate shall be exempted from the requirement of depositing a sum with the returning officer provided that he is the nominated candidate of a registered political party as defined in the Schedule (Registered Political Parties)".'.
New clause 23—Conditions for nomination—
'Schedule 1 to the principal Act shall be amended by substituting for rules 9 and 53 the following rule—
A nomination shall not be valid unless it is signed by 500 electors of the Division for which that nomination is made; the nomination shall remain valid notwithstanding a margin of error in the number of five per cent.; and any such nomination may be presented for checking by the returning officer during a period of six months prior to the date of a parliamentary election".'.
Amendment No. 65—new schedule—

'REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTIES

(1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department may, by order, establish a scheme for the registration of political parties. No condition of eligibility shall attach to such a scheme, except that a registration fee, prescribed by the Secretary of State shall be payable.
(2) Any party so registered shall be a registered political party for the purposes of this Act.
(3) No political party will have to register to be able to participate in an election. Political parties not wishing to register will be able to continue to field candidates by the method otherwise prescribed in the principal Act.'.

Sir John Farr: We in the midlands have felt for a long time that £150 is too low for an election deposit. However, the Government's proposed deposit of £1,000 is unrealistically high. The £150 deposit was established many years ago, and, like the dog licence, it has remained unaltered. Action is obviously needed, if only to rule out the huge number of unsuitable candidates who stand for Parliament, particularly at by-elections.
In the past few weeks, I have received many letters from teenagers in schools in my constituency who want to know how to become a Member of Parliament. I have guided them to other constituencies and offered them good advice about their prospects in Leicester and Leicestershire for advancing their career. None of those teenagers has been deterred by the £150 deposit. If we raised the deposit to £1,000, surely that would deter teenagers who are still at school and who are keen on politics and may even want to set up their own party. Such a massive increase in the deposit would be a deterrent to those who aspire to enter Parliament.
I believe that, sooner or later, the House will be televised and that will lead to more people wanting to stand for Parliament. Whatever their reasons, we have no right to bar them by price from attempting to reach the privileged position that we are lucky enough to enjoy.
The deposit recommended in the Bill is definitely too high. No deposit is required in local government elections, but I accept that we must stop the sort of thing that happened in the Chesterfield by-election in February last year. The vast majority of the 17 candidates lost their deposits, but forfeited only £150 each. I will not list all the ridiculous names that appeared in the Chesterfield by-election, but 15 of them lost their deposit.
I want to consider what happens in other countries with which we are closely associated. We may be the oldest practising democracy; I think we are the best but we are not the only one. Fairly close to us is Belgium; the information I have this month is that no deposit is required for a candidate for either House. In Denmark, no deposit is required for a candidate for either House. In France, the

deposit for a candidate for the Assemblée Nationale is 1,000 French francs which is about £100. In Germany, no deposit is required of a parliamentary candidate. In Ireland, a candidate for the Dail has to make a deposit of £100. In Italy, no deposit is required. In Canada, the deposit is 200 Canadian dollars. In Japan, it is 2 million yen; no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) can do an immediate conversion but I think it is about £120. In New Zealand, the deposit is 100 New Zealand dollars which, at the present rate of conversion, is about £80.
The Government have got it wrong in proposing a deposit of £1,000. It will be a deterrent to many people if they have to find such an amount. We want to encourage everyone who wants to stand for election to do so; we do not want them to be deterred by the price.

Mr. Winnick: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has told us about other countries. It does not persuade me that they are right and we are wrong. Does he know whether facilities such as free postage at elections are afforded to candidates in those countries on the same basis as here?

Sir John Farr: I have all the details but I do not want to detain the Committee too long. Some have requirements about the number of signatures required to support a candidate. Others have different formulae for the percentage of votes that a candidate has to obtain to retain his deposit. Basically they all have a smaller entry fee or membership fee than we have.
I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will accept amendment No. 51, which is fairly near to the suggestion in the report of the Select Committee. I think it recommended a deposit of between £600 and £1,000. I hope, too, that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept my suggestion in amendment No. 52 that the number of votes required to avoid forfeiting a deposit should be one tenth rather than one twentieth. If the deposit were reduced to £500 it would be better at the same time to double the percentage of votes required to save one's deposit from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. I shall be interested to hear the response of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Beith: Discussion on the Bill has been dogged from the beginning by the issue whether we should put a barrier of a £1,000 deposit in the way of someone who wants to stand for election.
It has been the contention of those who wanted that barrier not only that the £150 figure was long out of date, but that the barrier was needed to deter candidates who were frivolous, undesirable, threatening to our way of life or in some other way worthy of being deterred. It has been the contention of my party throughout the discussions—a contention shared by members of other parties and by a number of people outside the House—that that is not the right approach.
The imposition of a barrier of £1,000 would simply deter those unable to find that sum of money — not necessarily those who were frivolous or those whose motives in standing for election were wrong, perhaps for some commercial or undesirable purpose, or any of the other groups such as those with a racialist policy that some Members of Parliament have thought might be deterred by a high deposit. We have argued that such a high deposit would damage some of the smaller parties, such as the


Ecology party, which has made representations to Members in all parts of the House, Mebyon Kernow and Plaid Cymru.
A high deposit would present problems even for parties that do not lose deposits. Our position is somewhat different from that of the Labour party which lost 119 deposits at the last general election. We lost barely a handful. Even so, having to put up so large a sum at the beginning of a campaign is a cash flow disability to a party fighting an election. For example, a party might have to find more than £500,000 before funding any of the expenses involved in fighting the election. At a time when its resources are most greatly stretched, that would be a considerable additional burden.

Mr. Winnick: Let us consider the matter on the basis of preserving our parliamentary democracy. Of course we recognise immediately that having a deposit of whatever sum— I am not in favour of £1,000—would not stop candidates whose motive in standing was to promote racial hatred. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe, and is he telling the Committee, that, if the system was changed to one of collecting signatures, that would not help such candidates? Is he not aware that it is such organisations as the National Front which have always advocated that change? Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that a deposit is no deterrent to such candidates and that, on that basis, we should recognise that that would not cause any harm to our parliamentary system?

Mr. Beith: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because I believe that it is better for parties to stand for election and be shown, as the National Front has been shown, to command minimal support in the country as a whole. It received derisory support in relation to the claims it made. Should it be prevented from putting up candidates and provided with an opportunity to say that because it was denied that opportunity it must take to the streets to put its case? I do not believe that we should give it such an opportunity. The voters, quite sensibly, have shown that the vast majority have no truck with the appalling propositions of the National Front. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman believes that the barrier, whether deposit or signatures, should contribute to discouraging such organisations from putting up candidates at elections. Therefore, we start from a somewhat different approach.
As to the test itself, I believe it would be more relevant to ask whether a candidate enjoys support in the constituency in which he is standing than to ask him to produce money — wherever it may be from, whether inside or outside the constituency. The signature system is, at least in some measure, a test of support from within a constituency.
It is often argued that people can gather signatures in bus queues or while walking down the high street. It is not as simple as that, as those who have had to gather the minimal signatures now required must know. The signatures must be those of valid electors, with the electoral number placed alongside the signatures, which are then checked by the returning officers.
One of the two new clauses grouped with this amendment is designed to remove a technical difficulty from the present arrangements. Whether we have a large or small number of signatures, at present the nomination form must bear valid signatures and no provision is made

for the discovery that one signature is accidentally found to be invalid. A new clause which stands in my name and which we will discuss later would ensure, if we went for a system of signatures, that it would be possible to submit 110 signatures, and so long as there were 100 valid signatures on the paper the test would have been satisfied. That is a technical point which I hope will receive the attention of the Home Office.
9.30 pm
The main issue is the test—whether the deposit is a reasonable test of a candidate's support in a constituency, and therefore whether money should be the test. My argument is that signatures are a more valid test and that money is no test at all.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is right to say that, even if we stick with the deposit system, we should not have a level as high as £1,000. Suggestions of £500, for example, seem a marked improvement in terms of the burden that would be placed on parties outside the House and on the initial capital burden which would be placed on the parties represented here.
If, as I believe they will, the Government move away from the £1,000 figure, they will help to relieve themselves of the charge that they might be influenced by the greater financial security of their party compared with others. A change in the deposit figure would help the Government to ensure that such a charge could not be made to stick.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some Conservative Members would prefer the deposit to be even less, and that an amendment standing in my name suggests £250 so as to give anybody who wishes to stand the chance to do so?

Mr. Beith: It follows from what I have said that I would prefer the smallest deposit to which the Committee is prepared to agree. I do not believe that the size of a candidate's cheque book is a relevant test of any of the questions that we might ask to establish whether a person should avail himself of the opportunities of candidature. I appreciate that there are certain facilities and opportunities given to candidates and that those benefits cost money, such as the free delivery of post. There may be a case for not making those facilities available unless some test has been satisfied.
A financial test is not appropriate, however, and a deposit of £1,000 would be no answer. I would rather a candidate's financial resources were negligible, or virtually nil, so long as he could show that a number of people agreed to the proposition that he should be given the opportunity to stand. I would rather see him given that opportunity, however few votes he gets.
I do not accept the argument that the proliferation of fringe candidates at by-elections or even at general elections is a serious problem with which our democracy cannot contend. I fought a by-election in the early stages of what might be termed the blooming of a thousand flowers of fringe candidates. A number of interesting characters stood against me, representing a variety of strange causes, some from the Conservative and some from the Labour side. They represented various fringes of the political system, while some stood simply as individuals.
The conduct of that by-election in my constituency did not suffer from the presence of those people. Indeed, I do


not believe that the Chesterfield by-election suffered materially or that the electorate were confused by the candidates. As it happens, I do not believe that the voters came to the right conclusion in electing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Those who voted for or against him were not materially or seriously confused by the presence of other candidates.
Certain other difficulties which arise—such as the ability of a candidate to veto a television broadcast in which a candidate from one of the principal parties wants to appear — should not be resolved by imposing a financial barrier. Such problems, if they need resolving, should be resolved by reference to the rules governing the television appearances of candidates and not by saying that only candidates who can afford more than £1,000 should be able to veto whether another candidate should appear on a television programme.
The deposit approach is mistaken, while the signatures approach is preferable. But if the Committee insists on persevering with the deposit idea, it would be wrong to accept the proposed figure of £1,000.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): In rising at this stage I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in no way seeking to truncate discussion. I merely thought that it would be convenient to give the Government's view.
Unlike the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I think that the deposit is a perfectly respectable parliamentary barrier founded in principle. It is not just a financial barrier erected to make it more difficult for those who do not have the necessary money. The deposit is founded in principle because the essence of election to Parliament is the contest between people who have serious aspirations to represent a constituency. Everyone is entitled to stand; no one is prevented from standing. It is reasonable that the considerable privileges rightly enjoyed by parliamentary candidates should not be too readily available to those who stand for purposes other than a serious expectation of election. There is a variety of possible purposes. Personal publicity, the sheer fun of standing and the attempt to gain commercial advantage are among the motives that have influenced people to stand for election.
A more respectable motive is to advance a cause or an argument, even though there is no chance of being elected to Parliament. I do not believe that that is other than a distortion of the electoral process. It is possible for people to hold meetings outside an election context and to advance their views in a variety of ways, but if they are standing for Parliament the assumption must be that they regard themselves as people who have some credible chance not just of putting forward views that they would like to make more readily acceptable but of being elected to Parliament.
For those reasons, the deposit is a reasonable barrier — not an obstacle. It is not a barrier that prevents anyone from standing, but one that can be surmounted. The level at which that barrier should be set is a matter of degree.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Why is the deposit a reasonable test of a person's serious expectation of being elected?

Mr. Brittan: If he places the money down and is prepared to forfeit it, that indicates that he has some

reasonable expectation of obtaining the number of votes required for him not to forfeit his deposit. There may be people who are simply prepared to throw their money away and have no serious expectation of obtaining the necessary number of votes. I suggest that there are not many of those people. Not many parties are prepared simply to do that. Therefore, the deposit is a hurdle that must be surmounted. It is not an absolute obstacle.
The benefits conferred upon candidates are considerable. The benefit of the free post is worth about £8,000 alone. It is reasonable to say that that benefit should not be enjoyed by someone who is not prepared to put something at risk.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that the problems, such as the veto on radio and television appearances, should be dealt with separately. I do not believe that that is so, because such aspects are part of our electoral system, which is designed to ensure fairness. I do not see why they should be removed simply to take away the problems caused by the proliferation of candidates. It is a matter of where one sets the level.
The Home Affairs Select Committee considered that aspect. The £1,000 figure has the respectable backing of the Select Committee's unanimous recommendation. That is the principal reason why that figure appears in the Bill. It is a respectable reason. One must consider that £1,000 is less than half what £150 in 1918 terms would be if translated into today's money. Plainly, any figure is bound to be arbitrary. Therefore, the Government have made it clear that they are prepared to listen to the views of all concerned and to see which figure would command the widest consensus among those who are prepared to accept that the deposit has a proper place in our electoral system.
I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said in support of the view that £1,000 is too high, and £500 is the right figure. It is no secret that we had discussions with all the parties about those matters, and in particular, as is right and proper, with the major Opposition party, the Labour party, which has a legitimate interest in these matters. As a result of the discussions, I came to the view that the figure of £500 would have the widest common consent in the Committee. Therefore, the Government now commend that figure to the Committee in the spirit of compromise and of wanting a measure such as this to go on the statute book with the widest agreement.

Mr. Winnick: We recognise the need for consensus and welcome the reduction from the proposed £1,000 to £500. Has it occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the sum could have been increased by a more modest figure—say, £250— while retaining the number of votes that have to be gained before losing the deposit? Would that not have been a better way?

Mr. Brittan: I was going to come to that point.
I shall deal, first, with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) about the deposit not being forfeit, and exempting candidates from paying a deposit if they are nominated by political parties that were registered as such on a scheme to be prescribed by the order of the Secretary of State. I do not find it attractive to have such a registration system for the purpose of exemption of payments of deposits. I do not find it easy to see, although I have not had the benefit of hearing from my hon. Friend, why those parties


that are formalised and organised in the way described should be given such a privilege. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, if he catches your eye, Sir Paul, will no doubt be able to deal with the argument as expanded rather than the argument as anticipated.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked about the threshold. The right balance is to increase substantially the deposit from £150 to £500, but to reduce the threshold not just from 12 per cent. to the 7·5 per cent. recommended by the Select Committee, but to 5 per cent. I have come to that conclusion because one is trying to set up a forfeit in the form of a deposit, if one wishes to look at it in that way, but a forfeit that should not be lost if the candidate concerned has established that he is a credible candidate in the sense of securing a reasonable percentage of the poll of those who vote in an election.
Again, there cannot be anything absolutely right when we talk about percentages. It can only be a matter of judgment or assessment. I am not proving or demonstrating that 5 per cent. is right or 7·5 per cent. is wrong. An analysis of recent elections will show that a threshold of 5 per cent. is sufficiently high to eliminate purely frivolous candidates, recognising that the word "frivolous" has a high element of subjectivity. At the same time, we should not inhibit the free expression of opinion, and the participation in elections of budding political parties that have serious claims to credibility at the time that they stand for election.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed discussed signatures. I do not commend the signature method to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman airily dismissed the technical problems. Any agent who has been involved in such matters for whatever political party would not dismiss the objections so readily. There might be ways round them, but even collecting the limited number of signatures required at present can be a headache for agents. One cannot simply disregard that.
9.45 pm
More seriously, I rely upon the question of principle. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talks about 100 signatures and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) in a new clause refers to 500 signatures. The number of signatures is not a proper test of support because those who sign do not promise their support for the candidate, but merely assent to nomination.
At the trial involving the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in 1983, it was alleged that one candidate collected his signatures in minutes at the pub opposite the town hall. People sign because they believe that a person should be allowed to stand, not because they support him. Even if we changed that and said that the person who signed was showing his support for the candidate, the problem would still exist. That would be a hollow gesture. It is possible to collect many signatures when all that is asked is to allow a person to stand.
The question is whether we believe it is right to erect some hurdle and impose a penalty if a person does not surmount that hurdle. It is reasonable and right that in an election to choose a Member of Parliament the hurdle should not be placed so high as to prevent serious candidates, but high enough to prevent abuses of the system of the type that have come to the fore in recent years.
In that spirit and for those reasons the Government commend the proposition that the deposit should be raised from £150 to £500 with a 5 per cent. threshold.
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move that in view of the hour, because many hon. Members wish to participate further in the debate and because we have made good progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Housing Benefits

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefits Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1965), dated 17th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
Those of us who watch these things with interest have seen a degree of activity by the Opposition, including the Official Opposition. The Minister can take it from that that there is an unusually high degree of interest in these regulations. They have been hurried through, arguably without proper consultation. They are ill-thought-out and will have adverse effects on bona fide claimants.
The DHSS seems to have responded with knee-jerk alacrity to some of the newspaper headlines and articles that were carried late in November 1984. The article carried in The Guardian on 17 November pointed out in its heading that the housing benefit loophole had appeared and could cost the DHSS as much as £190 million according to its estimates.
The Department responded by introducing these regulations. We have only to look at the front of the regulations to see that they were made on 17 December 1984; they were laid before Parliament on 18 December; and they came into operation on 19 December 1984. That was while we were in the course of the housing benefit review. Mr. Jeremy Rowe, CBE, has only just completed his report. I believe that it is in the hands of Ministers. They are in the course of a fundamental, far-reaching review of the system. Therefore, the least that the Government should have done should have been to defer the new regulations until they could have been incorporated into the complete review.
The introduction of the regulations goes against the Government's stated intention. Their circular HB(84)7 dated 20 December 1984 in paragraph 2 states:
It is intended to avoid legislative changes wherever possible until decisions have been taken following the report of the Housing Benefit Review.
On 16 November, in a written answer, the Minister says much the same. Against that background, and if that is the Government's decision, why did they bring forward these regulations in this spatchcock and over-hasty fashion? The way in which the regulations have been introduced is undesirable. It raises an issue of some importance.
The way that the Department has operated during this Parliament on some of these issues does not bear careful examination. It does it no credit. Five other sets of regulations have attracted allegations of indecent haste. The first one that came to my attention when I became a Member of the House was in November 1983 when the springless mattress case brought forth a commissioner's decision. The timetable then was that the commissioner's decision was made on 2 November, regulations were laid on 4 November, they were in force on 5 November, referred to the social security advisory committee on 28 November, and debated by Parliament on 5 December. There are other such cases which show that the Department has in the past—I accept that the system is complicated—resorted to introducing regulations over-hastily. It has made something of a mockery of the consultation process.
As evidence of that, may I adduce the statement made by councillor John Donnelly, who is chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities housing committee? His press release dated 9 January 1985 stated:
effectively we were given only six working days to consider extremely complex proposals"—
which they are—
with wide-ranging implications. It was quite impossible to provide an adequate response in this timescale. To make matters worse, a few days after the original deadline, more changes were proposed. A response was demanded within four days. But this time the DHSS went one worse: they didn't even given us copies of the amendments proposed!
Section 36 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982—the parent Act of the regulations—makes it mandatory that the Secretary of State:
shall consult with organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned.
The Government are in danger of being charged, legitimately, that they are not proceeding or consulting with the appropriate authorities in good faith. That alone is a matter of concern.
Two regulations concern me in particular—regulations 11(3) and 18(3A), which create the new regulations governing joint tenancies. A joint occupier who, within the eight-week period prior to the creation of a joint tenancy or agreement, was a non-dependant of the other joint occupier or occupiers, will not now be eligible for housing benefit. Instead, he will continue to be treated as a non-dependant. That is unless the authority is satisfied that that joint tenancy or other agreement was not created to take advantage of the housing benefit system.
The other important regulation that I should like to discuss is regulation 23, which concerns so-called contrived tenancies. The regulations show that a person shall not be eligible for housing benefit where "it appears" to an authority that the tenancy was created to take advantage of the scheme, unless in the eight weeks prior to the creation of the tenancy or agreement that person already had a liability to make rent or rate payments in respect of that dwelling. Regulation 23 states that a person will not be eligible for housing benefit when he or she
resides with the person to whom he is liable to pay rent or, as the case may be, to make payments by way of rates
or
is a close relative or the tenancy or other agreement between them is other than on a commercial basis.
The term "close relative" is defined to include step relatives and in-laws. That is the import of the regulations.
I should like to refer first to the joint tenancy provisions. In my opinion, the new regulation is unnecessary. I should be obliged if the Minister turned his mind to it. Authorities already had the power, before the regulations, to disallow benefit when a tenancy or agreement, or joint tenancy, had been created to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme. I should be obliged if the Minister will confirm that my interpretation of the previous statutes is right. If so, why was it necessary to rush through the provisions on joint tenancies?
We must also deplore the change because it will add to the confusion that already exists between the housing benefit regulations and the Housing Act 1980. An occupier can at one and the same time be a joint owner or a tenant under the Housing Act and a non-dependant under the housing benefit legislation. Moreover, the new power contradicts the Government's Housing Act. On the one hand, in the Act they are actively encouraging council


tenants jointly to purchase their homes with their co-occupiers, yet on the other hand the new regulation will discourage council tenants from becoming joint owners.
The new regulation has been framed in such a way that authorities have a duty — as far as I understand the regulations—to refuse benefit unless they are satisfied that the joint tenancy or agreement was not created to take advantage of the scheme. If that is so, claimants are being viewed as guilty until they are proved innocent. That is the wrong way round.
I have looked at the regulation carefully. Neither the regulation nor the official guidance HB(84)7, which accompanies it, provides authorities with any criteria that they should apply to satisfy themselves that a joint tenancy or agreement was or was not created to take advantage ofthe scheme. The Minister will know that the review procedure that is instituted to try to disentangle some of the problems is different from the procedures that apply under the social security scheme. There is a great danger that different councils in different parts of the country will interpret some of the regulations and provisions differently, and we shall end up with a patchwork of different decisions being taken by review panels. It is possible to take decisions to judicial review.
Local housing authorities will be trying to set up housing benefit regulations under the terms of the new order with little guidance and in some instances the Department of Health and Social Security will be saying that if benefit is paid when it does not think that payment is justified the payment will not be reimbursed. There are many problems that still have to be resolved.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is my hon. Friend aware that in various parts of the country, including the one that I represent, some local authorities are making back-payments of benefit under the regulations which the ones we are considering supersede? I have in mind especially striking miners who are single men and living at home. Many striking miners sense that the regulations were rushed in to hit them. The inequity between local authorities seems even worse.

Mr. Kirkwood: I substantiate entirely that which my hon. Friend has put before the House. He has illustrated the argument that I am advancing. I sense that others may wish to take up the point about the miners because it forms an important part of the background against which the contrived tenancy regulations were introduced, but I do not seek to deal with it. It is true that there is great potential for confusion and differences in interpretation throughout the country.
My interpretation of the regulations leads me to the conclusion that regulation 23 is unnecessary. I think that authorities have sufficient power to disallow benefit where a tenancy agreement has been contrived to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme. I do not see that regulation 23 takes us very much further forward. As I interpret the regulations, they will disallow benefits where tenancy agreements are merely contrived or intended to be so. In some instances they will discourage tenants from renting a dwelling or spare room that they would otherwise wish to rent. If that analysis is right, the regulations will encourage the underuse of accommodation, which is something that I think the Minister would deplore.
Paragraph (1) of regulation 23 gives authorities blanket power to disallow benefit where it appears that a tenancy agreement has been created to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme. Neither the new regulations nor the accompanying circular HB(84)7 gives authorities any guidance on the criteria that should be deployed in deciding whether a tenancy has been "contrived". Is a tenancy to be regarded as contrived when the tenant knows, is friendly with, or on close and friendly terms with the landlord before he or she first rents the accommodation? It is clear that there will be great variations between authorities in the way in which that issue is interpreted. Unjustified variations will result in the income maintenance system.
Paragraph (2) of regulation 23 is equally misguided. Many people with a spare room are understandably unwilling to let it to a complete stranger but would be prepared to let it to those with whom they are familiar, such as relatives. The change in the regulations could prevent them from being able to do so. Relatives will be unwilling to rent accommodation when they will be unable to obtain housing benefit. In certain circumstances the regulation will encourage under-occupation, which is to be regretted.
The definition of "close relative" is so wide that it includes those such as step-relatives and in-laws, who may not be at all close. Some of us have in-laws who are close and some of us have in-laws who are not. The definitions as drawn in the regulation will cause many difficulties apart from the definition of "close relative" that is used in respect of non-dependants providing domestic assistance for disabled persons, for example. Why is there this contradiction?
Even more serious is the fact that many tenants of bona fide resident landlords will no longer be able to claim housing benefits. Many resident landlords let spare rooms, not for commercial reasons but to help to repay their mortgages, yet under the new regulations, if a tenancy is on other than a commercial basis, a tenant of a resident landlord will not be eligible for benefit. Again, that will make it more difficult for resident landlords to let spare rooms and will thus encourage under-occupation. It could even make it more difficult for people on low incomes to afford the cost of mortgages.
My complaint is that the regulations are unnecessary. I appreciate that there are many difficulties, and I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to deal with the contrived tenancy as it relates to the National Union of Mineworkers. The Government were ill-advised to introduce the regulations when they did against that background. I do not believe that they did so maliciously, but that they took an adminstrative decision in good faith. However, as politicians, they should have realised that a sensitive issue was involved. Their action served to exacerbate the industrial dispute. By any subjective or objective test, the regulations are unnecessary, premature and ill-advised, and if I have the opportunity later this evening, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Housing benefit has always had two purposes. The first was to help those in need with their housing costs so that everyone could live in some comfort whether they could afford it or not. The idea was always that we should charge whatever


rent was necessary for good management and then subsidise the tenants who were in need. However, in practice, the housing benefits scheme has proved to do rather less and rather more than that. For example, many councils, which are the only bodies to have deregulated rents, do not charge enough rent. The reason why they do not charge enough rent is that they have the misguided idea that their tenants are paying the rent when in fact they are not. Many councils do not spend those rents wisely. They tend to spend the money, for example, on neighbourhood centres instead of on repairs. That is why there is such poor accommodation in many of our cities. Many councils now make a profit on their housing revenue accounts, which is one reason why public expenditure always increases. The DHSS is now subsidising the Department of the Environment, as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench realise.
The secondary objective of housing benefits was to introduce some efficiency into the muddle of the different systems of rebates and to reduce the misappropriation of funds whereby tenants received rent moneys, but did not pay them over. But given the history of housing benefits since their inception nearly two years ago, perhaps the less said about their contribution to efficiency, the better.
In publishing the orders the Government have acted correctly to preserve the spirit of housing benefit as I have tried to enunciate it—to help those in housing need, with the better and more efficient use of public money.
A family claiming housing benefit is subject to deductions for each working non-dependant at home. In my view, that is right. We should expect such people, if they are working, to make a contribution. But if they became joint tenants, they could all claim housing benefit. The Guardian on 17 November 1984 estimated that about 700,000 households could do that, and so gain up to £500 a year at a cost of about £190 million a year to the DHSS. In addition, we have heard references tonight to striking miners. A person not eligible for supplementary benefit, such as a young miner on strike who lives at home with his parents—in other words, a non-householder would still be eligible for housing benefit if the rules were not changed, provided that he is paying some form of board and lodging. Therefore, either as joint tenants or as spurious sub-tenants, people would become eligible for housing benefit.
It is interesting to see the example that was quoted in The Guardian, which relates to the Newton family. They had a single tenancy. The husband and wife are low-paid workers earning £110 a week!—I thought we paid our Ministers rather better than that. They have an 18-year-old apprentice son earning £50 a week and a 14-year-old daughter at school. They pay £18 a week in rent and £6 a week in rates. Perhaps the changes that were introduced in a written answer last week by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would encourage the Newton family to buy a second home and to claim mortgage interest relief from the parliamentary allowance. As a result, the Newton family is not entitled to claim housing benefit under the rules as they have been interpreted until recently. However, if the Newton family decide to have a joint tenancy instead and they split the rent into two-thirds parents and one-third son, they will then be entitled to receive £2·08 per week housing benefit for the parents and the son will receive £8 per week benefit. The total benefit is £10·08 per week, a gain of over £500 a year. That is a loophole of a very large kind and of a very expensive kind.
A question was asked a moment or so ago about why they should not be able to claim that money. In my view, it is inappropriate that £190 million of public money should be pirated in this way. I can think of much better ways of spending it — for example, on the National Health Service—and I can think of no good reason why the working miners of south Derbyshire should have to dig deeper into their pockets for the taxation which they worked so hard to earn in order to provide housing benefit for strikers in Yorkshire and one or two other places, whose main activity seems to have been to come and cause mayhem in my constituency.
But it was the headline of the Guardian article which caught my eye. It is called, "Yes please, Minister." That is exactly what is going on here, in my view. There is an entire industry of people in organisations like SHAC, Shelter and one or two others — which often do extremely good work in housing and look after people in housing need extremely well—scouring the thousands of pages of DHSS regulations and examining in detail the loosely knitted and ill fitting garment that is the housing benefit scheme looking for loopholes and gaps.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Does the hon. Lady recognise that if her Government restored the duty that DHSS officers once served under but which was removed by this Government, namely, to remind claimants of their rights, it might not be necessary for such an industry to exist?

Mrs. Currie: I have no doubt that however many DHSS officers we had there would be a number of highly competent people in voluntary organisations reading between the lines and trying to figure out whether they could encourage people to claim things which the scheme was never intended to give and which it is not funded to give at all. In my view, housing benefit has become a raiment which keeps out the cold only in isolated places. It has got holes all over it that are big enough to let the most unattractive of creatures get inside. The trouble is that it is the people in need who suffer and the people quids in who tend to clean up.
A large number of people are now dependent upon housing benefit. We spend over £4 billion a year on it and we aid something like 7 million households. Without meaning to we have created a major support for some of the most disadvantaged people in our society and a large number of others. It is a support which I suspect cannot now easily be abolished — all the more reason for ensuring that the system is sound and defensible. What Shelter and the other organisations were doing was contrived and exploitative and had nothing whatever to do with housing need. The Government were timely and correct to act as they did.

Mr. Robin Cook: Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), I am almost tempted to have sympathy for the Minister because of the impossible pressures he faces from his own Back Benchers.
As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my speeches in the House are nowadays rare. There is as yet no Government Department to which I can relate. However, I speak on this occasion specifically because of the representations I have received from my own local


authority. During the past year it has been alarmed at the growing number of households who find themselves increasingly in arrears following the dramatic rise a year ago in the non-dependant deductions. However, it discovered to its great delight at the end of November 1984 that it was legally possible for it to pay benefit to non-dependants who were making that deduction. But only three weeks later it found that this Government, having discovered that it was assisting those who were in arrears, were taking specific and speedy action to block up that loophole.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the miners who are claiming benefit by means of this loophole. The National Union of Mineworkers is relevant to this debate if only because the NUM showed ingenuity not previously shown by Shelter, CPAG or Temple Bar in discovering this loophole. It is to their credit that it did. I suspect that the miners are also relevant to the debate because of the remarkable speed with which the Government have acted.
Reference has already been made to the short period for consultation: six days for consultation on first appearance and four days for consultation with the amendments. Only the NUM could prompt the Government to act with such speed.
But at that point the miners and the NUM cease to be relevant to the regulations before us, because the regulations hit not just the miners but every family which finds itself in the same position. The regulations do not say specifically that they will deny benefit to miners who are non-dependants. Even the Government have not got to the stage of introducing a specific statutory restraint on miners which would take us back to the 16th century and the days of colliery serfs. The regulations will stop anybody in that position receiving benefit.
Let me draw the attention of the House to the lack of logic behind what is being proposed. On the one hand, the Government recognise that there are non-dependants who are close relatives and who are paying rent and rates charges to the chief tenant. The Government could hardly do other, having so increased the deductions from the benefit received by the chief tenants in respect of those non-dependants. Indeed, the Government now base their assumptions about the housing benefit that they will pay on the clear understanding that those non-dependants, those close relatives, are paying rent and rates.
Since April 1984, the charges that the Government have assumed are being paid by those non-dependants have more or less doubled. For an 18 to 20-year-old in work the charge went up from £4·55 in April 1983 to £8·80 in November last year. The reason for that dramatic rise in non-dependant deductions was not the sudden discovery by the Government of the importance of the filial duty of the son or daughter towards the chief tenant, but was purely and simply financial. The Secretary of State had to find £200 million in savings and he found half that sum by obliging non-dependants to pay an increased deduction towards the housing benefit of their parents.
The regulations rub salt into that wound. Having required those non-dependants, those close relatives, to pay rent and rates on a considerable sum to their parents, the chief tenants, they now prevent those non-dependants from getting housing benefit in their own right. It should

be noted that on strict financial grounds, on the income criteria, the great majority of those non-dependants would qualify for housing benefit.
The income of teenagers has never been high. The Government have taken many measures to make sure that it goes down rather than increases. The general level of teenage wages in the population as a whole has declined under the Government. Indeed, the Government have introduced a system by which they will subsidise employers if they will pay teenagers £50 or less—the youth workers scheme. It is an interesting comment that tonight we are debating the Government's anxiety to avoid subsidising the teenager in meeting his housing costs, while on the other hand they are perfectly willing to subsidise an employer who will exploit that teenager's work.
The Child Poverty Action Group has carried out a survey of 111 households which are in a band relevant to these regulations. That survey of households which responded to a letter from the CPAG in the Daily Star discovered that the highest wage received by the non-dependants was £85 a week. That is below half average earnings. Most of those involved were well below that figure. Indeed, most of them were earning only about half that figure.
Many of those caught in those households, were it not for the regulations before us, could qualify for full rebate on the non-dependant deduction which the Government assume that they pay as a rent and rates charge to the chief tenant. Some of them have barely £8·80 a week left to give after they have paid for their food, heating and fares from their wage.
Hon. Members may accept, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South did so clearly and unequivocally, the principle of such a deduction, but there are strong grounds for challenging such a principle and it is interesting that that principle is applied in our law only to the poorest and most vulnerable families in Britain. I often have it brought home to me just how inequitable the Government are by how decently, nicely and sweetly they treat me. When my children reach the age of 18 and proceed to earn an income, even if they succeed in earning an income that rivals that of the Secretary of State for Social Services, not a penny will be wiped off the tax relief on my mortgage interest. It is only those who are the most vulnerable to whom the principle is applied.
Even if we accept the principle, there can be no doubt that the figures involved are exorbitant in relation to the wages of teenagers or to the rent charge on the house. For a chief tenant with a couple of teenagers who are working, the non-dependant deduction made in respect of those two teenagers may well equal the weekly rent and rates charges. Such a tenant will therefore be liable to pay full rent and rates, in effect, to have the full rent and rates charge met by the two sons or daughters in the household, although patently they are not occupying the full house, thus leaving the chief tenant in the undignified position of having the full rent and rates on his house met by his children.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot deny housing benefit to the parents on the grounds that the children should pay rent and then deny those children the right to apply for housing benefit.
There is at least one element of logic in what the Government propose. They say that the housing benefit should be denied to non-dependants in these circumstances


because there is no commercial contract for the payment of rent. In that at least the Government are correct. Most parents do not seek a commercial contract for the payment of rent in these circumstances, and many of those who try are unable to get one.
The survey of the Child Poverty Action Group found that, of the 111 households that contacted it, 79 tenants would not approach their teenage sons or daughters for the non-dependant deduction because they viewed it with repugnance. Of that 79, one was a widow living on the state pension of £33·10 per week. On that amount she was liable to a weekly rent and rates charge of £8·20 attributable solely to the fact that she had a son.still living with her. She would not ask him to contribute to the rent because he was her son, he had always lived with her and he was saving for his marriage; nor would she put him out of the house.

Mrs. Currie: Why not?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady's question betrays the lack of her imagination, understanding and compassion. One reason why the widow was reluctant to do this — a reason cited by many others in similar circumstances—is the fear that her son would leave. Those who are widowed or single parents are reluctant to speed the day when teenagers leave the house. They are therefore reluctant to ask for what is now a large sum—indeed, it equals what many teenagers would have to pay to rent a single room. [Laughter.]
The hilarity of Conservative Members demonstrates their incomprehension and their total inability to understand what the sum of £8·20 can mean to ordinary people. It may be difficult for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South to understand what that amount means in a household of this kind. I say to the hon. Lady that there is no reason why her constituents or the House should forgive her refusal to try to understand what this might mean in such cases.
We face double standards and hypocrisy in this measure. Conservative Members claim to be the party of the family. This measure which they have boosted to such an exorbitant level of income in the last 18 months has without doubt broken up families. There are recorded cases of non-dependants being obliged to leave the house because of this measure. In many more cases where a break-up of a family has not occurred there have been rows, tensions and deterioration of family life because of the non-dependant deduction. To compound all that evil, this petty measure is laid before the House to block up the one chink of light that had been offered to these households.
I mentioned earlier that my local authority has noticed a significant increase in rent arrears since the increase in the non-dependant deduction was introduced. My local authority is not alone in that. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have called for the deduction to be abolished. The Association of District Councils has called for it to be reviewed in the interests of natural justice. The Institute of Housing Officers and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives have argued that the present deduction is far to high. The Social Security Advisory Committee has expressed grave concern.
No one involved in the implementation of the non-dependant deduction is prepared to defend the principle and the level of deduction. It is a measure of the deafness and stubbornness of the Government that, faced with that consensus of alarm and criticism and the pleas for a review, they take this mean and petty action to block a loophole.
The measure is illogical, irrational, mean and spiteful and motivated by the Government animus against the miners. It will cause hardship to families who, at the end of November, were encouraged to hope that there might be relief from the problems caused to them by the Government's previous actions.

Orders of the Day — Housing Benefits

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) should make more speeches on social security matters and spend less time campaigning. He would be more successful in social security debates, and he has made a cogent and clear attack on the measure.
I want the Government to understand what the sequence of events has meant in mining areas such as my constituency. The picture that is painted, particularly by Conservative Members, is that a group of people rushed in and made a fast profit out of a loophole in the social security rules and thereby enhanced their already considerable financial ease. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are talking primarily about single striking miners — young lads in many cases — who live at home, sometimes with a widowed mother and often in an improverished household which had previously depended on their contribution. In many cases it was not long ago that the miners were still at school and were making no contribution to the household.
Those youngsters in the mining industry, mainly aged between 16 and 21, have suddenly found that they are causing a drastic reduction in their parents' ability to make ends meet. We are talking about families who were among the poorest to start with. They were not households in which there were two or three miners bringing in a substantial income. I am thinking particularly of homes where there is a widowed mother on the old-age pension and a young lad who is on strike. At the end of last year those youngsters were led to believe that they would be able to claim back payments under the regulations. That was a chink of light for them in their desperate situation.
Some Conservative Members seem to want to dwell on the moral position of someone who reduces his own circumstances by going on strike. But we are talking about elderly parents who had nothing to do with the decisions of their sons. Those lads have been caught up in the strike. The parents played no part in their decisions and real hardship is being caused.
At the end of last year, it seemed that some back payment of housing benefit could be made. In some areas, the local authorities paid out, but in others they did not. Families in Castle Morpeth and in Alnwick in my constituency have not received any money. The Minister should realise that he has left the local authorities in utter confusion. He has left the people seeking benefit at a loss to understand why the person they normally work alongside in the pit is getting the benefit because he lives on the other side of the border, and they are not. That is the position in pits like Ellington in my constituency. A striking miner who lives in Ashington is getting the benefit and a striking miner who lives in Lynemouth or Ellington is not because of the confusion among local authorities.
I asked the local authorities why they are not paying out the back benefit, at least for the period until the new regulations came into force. They tell me that the advice they are getting from the Department of Health and Social Security is unclear and they do not understand what they are supposed to do. I wrote in November about one of

these cases. In his reply, the treasurer of Alnwick district council defined the lad concerned and his widowed mother as unable to qualify for benefit. He said:
This is the position as the Regulations stand at present, but it is fair to say that certain local authorities are interpreting the Regulations in a manner which does not accord with the general view or the view of the Department of Health and Social Security.
So the local authority assumed that the DHSS would frown upon it even making back payments to which people thought they were entitled.
It has not ended there. There is still total confusion. I contacted Castle Morpeth borough council about other people who had been denied the back benefit, and was told that the council was still unable to come to a view on the matter and would probably be unable to come to a view at its next monthly council meeting because it had still not received satisfactory clarification from the DHSS of what it understood the position to be.
While this bureaucratic tangle is taking place, the Minister thinks he has carried out a nice, clean operation. He thinks he has neatly brought in new regulations which everybody understands and cleanly brought to an end the old arrangement. But there is nothing clean about it because some have received benefit and some have not. Of course, from now on eligibility has been greatly narrowed in the way hon. Members have described.
I plead with the Minister at least to get his officials on the telephone to the local authorities to sort out the mess. Those to whom I have spoken in local authorities are genuine local government officers. They are not motivated by any political or other view. They are in real confusion about the interpretation by the DHSS and are genuinely looking for guidance. I do not think the Minister can be satisfied when sums of £200 or £300 for housing benefit have been paid out reasonably to some of these "living in" youngsters who are on strike, while others, whose families are in equal need, are not getting a penny.
I urge the Minister to shut from his mind the idea that he is dealing with a group of people who are making a fast profit or who have somehow come into the money. He will have to look much nearer this building if he wants to find people who are in that position. If he goes among my constituents in the areas which are deeply affected by the strike, he will find real hardship which has been made worse by the regulations and sustained by the chaos and confusion over what back payments should be made under the original regulations. In many cases the hardship has nothing to do with any decisions which were taken by the elderly and hard-up parents of those young people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Most of the points that I wanted to refer to have been made. A debate later this evening will deal with another way in which the Government operate in their attacks against the poor and the most vulnerable.
There is no doubt that the reason why the Government brought in these regulations was that the National Union of Mineworkers, miners and the women's support groups had managed to find a loophole that enabled many local authorities, including Bolsover district council, to make these payments. No sooner had the local authorities started to put the plan into operation than the word was buzzing around here that the Government would take retaliatory action. It was not long before they did. Fortunately, many


local authorities took advantage of the scheme and paid out money to miners who had been advised to apply for it, whereas other authorities that were Tory-controlled did nothing. They abided by what were, no doubt, the Minister's instructions. I suppose that, like the Prime Minister, he will claim that he had nothing to do with it. They continued to refuse to pay the benefit.
Although the provision does not affect the National Union of Mineworkers now, some miners did not put in their claims in time. Some miners in my constituency were not aware of the position. For example, someone living with a widowed mother might not be aware of the position. They are being penalised, yet they live next door to and under the same authority as others who are not penalised. Bolsover district council has been doing its utmost to get around the regulations. No doubt other authorities in north Derbyshire have been doing the same.

Mr. Beith: Should not the Minister make it clear today that, when the local authorities have not even decided whether they should pay out, it is a scandal that people are being told that they are no longer entitled to claim back payments for that period? If local authorities do not know where they are, the individual can hardly be criticised because he has not yet made a claim.

Mr. Skinner: That is a valid point, and one that has been exercising the minds of local authorities in north Derbyshire. I am sure that the coalfields throughout the country have run up against the same problem. It is all part of the Government's policy against the miners. They use every echelon of the establishment to try to hammer them into the ground. They have used the judges and the law courts to try to get them down. They have used the police—who are known in my area as Mrs. Thatcher's private army—to try to smash the miners and the NUM. They have uprated the £15 deemed strike pay to £16 in an attempt to starve the miners.
That was one aspect that Ridley had not —[Interruption.] It was called the Ridley plan. I am talking about the Secretary of State for Transport, but it goes under the name of the Ridley plan. It was an attempt to use all parts of the establishment to attack the miners. However, this benefit was no part of that, so when the Government came up against it they decided to have a go at that as well. The amount of money involved pales into insignificance when compared with the news from a leading Tory, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, that during the miners' strike the CEGB has lost £2,000 million. That is all part of the folly of the Prime Minister in taking on the miners. These regulations are yet another example of a Government Department using its power to try to smash the miners.
This is happening in a week when, according to the newspapers—

Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party would give an undertaking to keep open all uneconomic pits and that it would not take on the miners, when its leader—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We are discussing regulations and must relate our remarks to them.

Mr. Skinner: As I was saying before that intervention, which you kindly dealt with Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am pleased that someone else can be out of order—I was

with the Deputy Speaker on Saturday when I bumped into one of those who have been deprived of the benefit. We were speaking at a joint rally in Doncaster. Mr. Deputy Speaker was put in his place because he was smoking on the platform.
We are debating this matter in the same week as Members of Parliament have been given the green light to get their housing benefits second time around. I understand that they can now use the £6,500 to buy a second home. The way in which the Government are tonight attacking people — not only miners but many others who are trying to make ends meet on a few quid a week—shows the double standards of the Tories.
It is worth remembering that the Government, who are attacking people living on the edge of poverty, are headed by a Prime Minister whose Private Office at 10 Downing Street cost £1,229,000 a year to maintain when she took office and is now costing £2,889,000. We can loosely call that her housing benefit. The right hon. Lady has three subsidised homes, one at Chequers, one in Downing street and one subsidised by the National Trust in Kent.
The Government have used every opportunity to try to bully and starve the miners back to work, but they are not succeeding. They could stop the drain on the pound and add no further to the £5 billion that it has cost the state to finance a strike that was engineered by the Prime Minister and her crown princes. The strike could be settled and we would not need to debate these regulations, which were born out of the strike and out of malice on the part of the Government. That is why I shall vote against them tonight.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Yet again today we are commenting on ill-conceived, hasty and ill-directed Government action. I use the word "commenting" deliberately, because we are not debating. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the regulations were made on one day, laid the next and brought into operation on the third. It is impossible to debate legislation with any degree of credibility when it has already been in operation for two months.

Mrs. Currie: Why bother?

Mrs. Beckett: Because there are people in a good deal of poverty for whom the loss of just under £9 a week is a desperate matter.

Mrs. Currie: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady has made several interventions. I will give way to her later. There are people in desperate poverty who cannot afford to lose this money. They will be hit by what the Government are doing. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) seems not for a second to understand their anxieties, fears and desperate concern for how they are to meet their bills.

Mrs. Currie: If it is a matter of such great concern to Opposition Members, why are so many of those hon. Members who signed the prayer which we are debating not present?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady is fond of making that point. When she last made it—not in this Chamber but on BBC radio—she was vocal about the fact that, when certain matters were debated, my hon. Friends would not be present but that she would. The following day they were debated and she was absent. I advise her to be careful when she makes that type of point.

Mr. Robin Cook: The percentage of the parliamentary Labour party present in the House is precisely the same as the percentage of the parliamentary Conservative party that is present.

Mrs. Beckett: We are told in the circular that the Government are consulting the authorities and the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is difficult to see how such bodies can be consulted when the regulations have been in operation since 19 December, and many authorities did not even get copies of the regulations until the middle of January. How can that be described as credible consultation?
The explanatory note to the regulations says that the matter
will be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Have the regulations been so referred? If not, will they be? Is any reaction from that committee available? I raise those questions all the more because of the reactions that the SSAC has already had to these non-dependant deductions.
This depressing little measure is an attempt by the Government — perhaps it is unnecessary — to prevent people from avoiding these non-dependant deductions which the Government introduced at such an excessive level almost a year ago. Even if one argues that such a deduction is justified—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made this point—it is difficult to understand how the deduction can be justified at that level. When the increase was announced, it was pointed out that it was much more than the rate of inflation. According to the SSAC, the previous increase was beyond what was "fair and realistic". When the increase was announced the level of deduction in respect of rent was almost half the average local authority rent. That gives strength to the remarks of my hon. Friend for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and alliance members about the scale of the imposition on the families involved.
The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), justified these deductions with a fine head of steam and indignation which was very much in the hon. Gentleman's best manner. His justification was that the Government were dealing with the selfish young. They were dealing with those who were living at home and earning — this applies also to those who were not earning — and who should be contributing to the household. He felt that the Government were teaching those young people manners, taking them in hand and enforcing a deduction which their parents would claim from them. For a variety of reasons, in many households — I think that many of us would understand these reasons if such circumstances occurred within our families — parents are unwilling or unable to extract contributions from their young relatives.
I have referred to constituency cases and the dozens of letters I have received as a constituency Member and as the shadow Minister, and this is one reason why I am especially concerned. I have referred to individuals who have come to my advice bureau in tears, saying that their working youngsters—for whose ability to obtain a job they had previously been grateful—are earning very low wages and, contrary to the supposition of the hon. Member for Brent, North, are paying substantial sums in board and lodging payments and towards rent and rates. Most young people are not as the hon. Member for Brent, North described them. Now such families are faced with a loss of income, because of the non-dependant deduction.
One mother said to me, "My son pays me more than he can afford out of his income. I cannot possibly ask for almost another £9. If he pays that sum to me, he will not be able to afford to go to work and pay for his meals." She was extremely distressed about how her family was to manage. The point is that the Government are taking this income from the family.
The regulations purport to deal with avoidance. We know that the Government are concerned more about avoidance in this respect than about tax avoidance. These ill-thought-out regulations will affect bona fide claimants as well as those about whom the Government are so concerned.
I have noted the reference in the Government's consultative document, a copy of which eventually reached local authorities. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned how confused local authorities are and how difficult it is for them to sort out what they are supposed to be doing. The circular is not especially forthcoming. It says:
Authorities will need to make further enquiries about the joint tenancy/agreement and the circumstances in which it was created. Authorities do not need to make enquiries in respect of every claim".
No doubt that is very generous. Fear of the Department of the Environment and worry about possible demands from local authorities for extra staff crept in here. The advice continues:
Authorities do not need to make enquiries in respect of every claim from a joint occupier but they should do so where it appears that the tenancy/agreement may have been entered into in order to take advantage of the scheme, for example where the joint tenancy/agreement was recently created and is between a parent and adult child.
It has already been said that the main purpose of the regulations has already been served. The powers that the Government sought to introduce through these regulations already exist. In that sense, the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about the mining dispute showed that that has had a great bearing on what the Government have done. What reason could there be, other than the Government's determination to put further pressure on local authorities and families, for introducing unnecessary regulations, whose only effect is to shift the burden a little towards presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and to place local authorities under some threat?
Local authorities are confused about what they are supposed to do, about what their duties are and about the threats made to them by the Government that if authorities make payments—theoretically, that is left to authorities' judgments—the Government might refuse to reimburse them. What can the Minister tell us that would cast some light on how those matters are to be judged and on the criteria that the local authorities are to use? Even more to the point, what criteria do the Government propose to use when a local authority, having done what has been urged in the debate and examined the circumstances and the families, some with striking miners, decides to make the payments?
I note that if the Government decide that they will not reimburse, that will place local authorities in a difficult position. I do not know where they will stand with regard to the district auditor. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay an unworthy suspicion that arises — that the reimbursements that will be scrutinised will be those from


Labour authorities or authorities that operate in mining areas. I doubt whether the Minister will be able to allay those suspicions.
We are speaking in the same context as the reductions that were made in the entitlement to benefit of the families of striking miners, because people on strike are not entitled to benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put his finger on the point. The Government deduct £16 from the benefit of families of striking miners. Single miners and their parents have no entitlement, but in this case the Government will continue to make a deduction from the housing benefit.
I am sure that we all recall the number of occasions on which the Prime Minister has told us how much she values Victorian standards. Some 150 years ago, there was a long dispute in a silk mill in my constituency. People were denied Poor Law assistance, specifically in the case of a poor widow, on the grounds that her children smelled of trade unionism. The Government appear to apply a similar standard today.
Most of all, in the context of the regulations, we are concerned about the confusion in the ill-thought-out treatment of non-dependants that seems to run throughout what the Government do. In the Housing Act 1980, the Government actively encourage joint tenancy, especially if that assists families to purchase their homes. Government assistance is used specifically to help families which are slightly less poor than many and which are able to purchase their houses with such help.
Under these regulations adult children are treated as dependants. The thrust of what the Government have in store for us is that adult children, in relation to board and lodging payments, must be treated as dependants. They must not be allowed to be away from home for more than two or three weeks if they are to claim board and lodging allowance. They are to be treated not as independent people, but specifically as children. Financially they are being encouraged to return home.
There are rumours about the Government's intentions for supplementary benefit entitlement for teenagers. A specific decision is being taken to treat them as children without any separate income. These regulations are different. They state that teenagers are to be regarded as non-dependant.
One theme runs through the Government's decisions, and it certainly does not involve logic. The Government adopt whatever course will save them money. Even the definition of "close relative" is different in these regulations. The definition does not refer to non-dependants giving domestic assistance to the disabled. The definition appears to be new. Perhaps the Government think that it will bring in the greatest trawl of financial saving.
What is meant in the regulations by the "commercial" basis of a tenancy. Who will define it? Will it be the local authority or the Government? If the authority is thought by the Government to get it wrong, will the authority lose out?
We are worried that many bona fide landlords and tenants will be affected and discouraged from letting accommodation. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the regulations will encourage under-occupation.
We can contrast the treatment of the poorer young people and their families with that of those of families who are sufficiently well off not to be involved with the benefit

system. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said earlier that since such young people were earning money, they should contribute. I hope that if that is the Government's attitude, the next Budget will contain tax changes so that earning non-dependants, or dependants who receive benefit, will be forced to contribute to the household's income and housing costs, irrespective of the way in which financial assistance is received from the Government.
What happens today in a family poor enough to receive housing benefit is that the earnings of children are taken into account. By contrast, children in a better off family can earn as much as they like—as much as a Minister or the Prime Minister — and the Government will not care tuppence how much tax relief is given or what that means in terms of housing subsidies.

Mrs. Currie: Why should they?

Mrs. Beckett: Why should they not? Why should poor families, dependent on the benefit system, be charged in this way when earning children in better off families do not have to make a contribution? I see no justice in that, and I find it hard to understand how the hon. Lady sees any justice in it.

Mrs. Currie: Is the hon. Lady really saying that families in which people earn a lot of money should have unlimited tax relief on their mortgages? I correct her if she is under that misapprehension. Is she suggesting that such families do not pay tax on their income? They do; and they pay a higher rate. What she has just said is a little misleading.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady cannot have thought through what she has just said. Of course I recognise that such people pay taxes, as do the working young adults in the families we are discussing. What I am saying is that the mortgage tax relief received by the better off parents is unaffected by the earnings of their children. That is the point. If the hon. Lady has not grasped it, she should stay out of the debate.
The problem is that these regulations, as is so often the case, are a hotchpotch, a mess, and unnecessary. They are introduced in a panic, because the Government read a story in a newspaper that someone might be able to extract more money, but they did not realise that they had the means to stop that under existing regulations. They have been tabled with what one can only describe as a degree of vindictiveness to try to prevent people from gaining a small degree of relief from the exorbitant charge—by anyone's judgment, including that of the SSAC—that the Government have imposed upon them through these non-dependant deductions. They are tabled on the criterion which seems to be the only one about which the Government care—cutting public expenditure.
The regulations have produced and will produce neither effectiveness nor justice, and that is shared by most of the other policies of the Government.

11 pm

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): It has been an interesting and rather instructive debate, although there was a moment when I did not care to he in the direct line of fire between Derby, South and Derbyshire, South.
As is clear, the regulations put into effect a number of changes in relation to housing benefit, to establish what


had always been thought to be and was intended to be the position rather than to make savings in public expenditure in the way that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggested. They were intended to prevent a rise in public expenditure that might otherwise have taken place.
The debate has concentrated on two aspects only of the regulations, the first being to close the unintended loophole relating to non-dependants and their potential claiming of housing benefit, and the second, on which a great deal of the latter part of the debate has concentrated, relating to contrived tenancies. There is an entirely beneficial third change in the regulations to which no one has drawn attention. It is designed to rectify an omission in the definition of rent which, although it was technical, placed a few people at an unintended disadvantage.
Although I cannot pretend that the sums of money at stake in those provisions which Opposition Members regarded as unattractive is on all fours with the sum of money that they found so attractive that they preferred not to mention it, it is fair for me to make the point that there is some balance in these regulations in that respect.
The unintended loophole allowed people living as members of their families' households to qualify for housing benefit if they made a payment for board and lodging that included an amount falling within the housing benefit definition of rent.
I believe that I can speak for previous Administrations in relation to the housing benefit scheme when I say that it was never the intention that people living in someone else's household, other than as commercial boarders, should be eligible for housing benefit. It was not allowed for under the old rent and rebate and rent allowance schemes which housing benefit replaced, and, as far as I am aware, at no stage did the hon. Lady or her predecessors in Government suggest that those former schemes should be amended to make possible what is now being demanded with such vehemence tonight. Such people cannot obtain supplementary benefit to meet the costs of their board and lodging.
The loophole would have allowed housing benefit to be paid to, for example, an adult son or daughter living in the parents' home where the only separate accommodation was the bedroom. In the light of what the hon. Lady has said tonight, I should be interested to know whether it is her party's policy to pay housing benefit under those circumstances, and if so whether she regards that as a priority for expenditure which we estimate could rise to some £200 million a year and which could be used for many more productive purposes whether in health, social services, social security or a number of other things.

Mr. Kevin Barron: That is interesting, because some of what has been said in the debate relates to the payment to single miners who have been on strike for the past 11 months. The Minister quoted a figure. Did he see the Channel 4 news tonight which said that the strike has cost the CEGB £2 billion so far? In those circumstances, many Opposition Members think that it is very harsh of the Government to have introduced the regulations as swiftly as they have to stop the payment of housing benefit to single striking miners.

Mr. Newton: The comparison that the hon. Gentleman is making is pretty far-fetched. Like many other hon.
Members — it happened again at Question Time yesterday—I must frankly say that I am absolutely fed up with hearing claims about the costs of keeping the fuel industries going during the dispute against a background in which the miners have caused hardship to pensioners and others by their actions.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, but this is right off at a tangent.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The reason why I used that figure was that it was on the news on Channel 4 today. I am a member of the Select Committee on Energy, and the chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), who is absent for tonight's debate, was quoting that figure.

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman has reached such a stage of irrationality about the miners' strike that he thinks that it is sensible to make a case for spending £200 million on a wasteful form of housing benefit expenditure merely because the miners' strike has already imposed a wholly unnecessary cost of £2 billion on the rest of the economy, it shows the extent to which he and his party are now living in the economics of the madhouse.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister argued that it would be wrong to make housing benefit available to a son or daughter who might be occupying only a single bedroom. Why, then, is it right for his Government to assume that that son or daughter will make a weekly payment towards rent and rates of £8.80 a week, which may be half the total rent and rates charged for the entire house, when only one room is being occupied?

Mr. Newton: It is already clear that we shall not achieve an accommodation of view on the matter any more than on earlier occasions. I must simply state my view that if it is thought to be unreasonable to suggest that a young person earning the sums that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the CPAG, which ranged up to £85 a week, should be expected to make a contribution of £8.80 a week to the housing costs of the household in which he resides, before the rest of the people in the country are expected to provide housing benefit for that household, we must just agree to differ. I think that it is reasonable, and I suspect that I carry my hon. Friends with me.
Apart from the case that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the CPAG survey, on the figures for April 1984 average earnings for men aged under 18 are £63 a week and for those aged 18 to 20 £101 a week. I do not think that the figures that are quoted as non-dependant deductions are in any way unreasonable in relation to those averages.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will appreciate that the figures that he quoted, including the figure of £85, are irrelevant to the regulations. Where those cases are eligible to apply for housing benefit, they would not qualify on income grounds. The only people affected by the regulations and who are denied benefit are those earning much smaller sums of generally less that £50 a week. It is those people whom he is preventing from getting benefit through the regulations.

Mr. Newton: Nevertheless there has been running through most of the speeches made by Opposition Members the proposition that it is unreasonable to expect


contributions of this nature to the household costs of the households in question. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
As I said, all we are doing with this part of the regulation is restoring the position to what had always been intended, and what had been thought to exist. I should like to refute firmly the suggestion that the change is specifically directed at miners or any aspect of the miners' strike. It is simply the fact, which I acknowledge, that the loophole was discovered by the National Union of Mineworkers' lawyers in crawling over the housing benefit regulations. I pay tribute to them for their diligence. However, the loophole would have had consequences and implications going far beyond the miners' strike, and it was one that I do not believe any Government of whatever colour would have chosen to live with for any length of time. No previous Administration have sought to change the law to allow that to happen. I do not believe that a Government of whom the hon. Member for Derby, South was a member would seek to do so.
A non-householder — someone not responsible for household expenditure for supplementary benefit purposes — is not eligible for a rate rebate or rent allowance at that address. Regulation 23(2) provides that where a person resides with a person to whom he pays rent or rates and
either that person is a close relative
or the rent is paid
other than on a commercial basis",
he will not be entitled to housing benefit. Genuine arrangements — for instance, where a family has taken an aging parent into its home and provided separate accommodation—are unaffected by the change. In such cases housing benefit may still be claimed for any rent and rates paid.
It has been suggested by Opposition Members that it should be a major feature in the argument that some householders find it difficult to obtain payment from their dependants and that that would be a good reason for granting housing benefit. How would it be secured that the housing benefit in those circumstances was either asked for or paid over to the tenant? I know of no mechanism to ensure that the benefit would be paid over in circumstances where apparently the non-dependant is not paying over the non-dependant deduction.
In response to the request for information to explain why we felt that the change in the regulations was necessary, the existing provisions on contrived tenancies do not cover joint tenancies, on the advice that I have been given. We think it right that any adult non-dependant, such as a grown-up son or daughter living in the claimant's household, should be expected to make a contribution towards household expenses. So a deduction is made from housing benefit in respect of each such non-dependant. Suggestions began to circulate towards the end of last year about how non-dependant deductions could be avoided by creating joint tenancies, thus making the householder and former non-householder eligible to claim housing benefit on their share of the rent. Such action would be a clear abuse of the intentions of the scheme. This issue was brought out well and effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
We thought originally that no action would be needed on the ground that few people would wish to apply for joint tenancies for this purpose and that local authorities would

act responsibly in considering applications from their tenants. However, it began to appear that a small number of authorities might be planning actively to encourage tenants to exploit the scheme. We were told by some authorities that as part of their overall housing management policy it was their normal practice to grant joint tenancies whenever they were requested and that publicity would place them in a difficult position.
We therefore decided that it would be right to take steps to prevent exploitation of the scheme, and that is what we have sought to do with the regulations. It would clearly be unfair if certain households were able to avoid the deductions being made and obtain additional benefit merely by being in a position to create a joint tenancy agreement with a non-dependant member of the household. To avoid this happening, regulations 8 and 11 provide that where a joint tenancy or agreement to pay rent and rates has been created, and during the previous eight weeks the claimant was a non-dependant of the occupier at the address, he will not be eligible for housing benefit. He will continue to be treated as if he were a non-dependant unless the local authority is satisfied that the joint tenancy or agreement was not created just to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme.
Thus the local authority has discretion—I think that there has to be discretion—to determine whether a joint tenancy is being requested for genuine or exploitative reasons. The amendment does not affect joint tenancy agreements between husband and wife. It applies only to those where the agreement is clearly made to abuse the housing benefits scheme. Genuine arrangements — for example, where a son or daughter has gone to live with his or her widowed mother because she is no longer able to live alone, and has entered into a joint tenancy agreement to protect his tenancy in the future—will be unaffected by the change.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked why the change on contrived tenancies was needed, and perhaps I could explain that to him briefly. Regulation 23 allowed an authority to disentitle a person who resided with the person to whom he paid rent, or who paid rent to a member of his family where the tenancy was created to take advantage of the housing benefits scheme. It could not be applied to certificated tenancies — that is, people in receipt of supplementary benefit. Several cases arose where the claimant did not live with the person to whom he paid rent, and/or he was a certificated case, but the agreement to pay rent was clearly contrived to take advantage of the scheme.
One case that has been mentioned to me to illustrate the point was that of a man who bought a house on a mortgage, and contrived to give the house to a friend and then to repay the mortgage from a loan, and to remain in the house, in effect paying off the loan in the form of rent and obtaining housing benefit on those payments. That is clearly the sort of device that was not intended and which we are seeking to prevent.

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree that that is clearly an abuse, but my point was that the present provisions disqualified such people because it is a clear abuse of the system. Why do we need extra regulations?

Mr. Newton: The legal advice that I have been given is that the existing regulations were not sufficient to prevent such cases. In this case, given that a mortgage was


involved previously, it would have been certificated housing benefit — the person in question would have been in receipt of supplementary benefit, not housing benefit. That is the problem that we are seeking to tackle. I hope that I have made the point sufficiently clear to the hon. Gentleman.
The provision for contrived tenancies covers the position where, in the past, local authorities could refuse housing benefit to a claimant not in receipt of housing benefit only if they believed that the agreement to pay rent and rates was clearly contrived to take advantage of the housing benefits scheme. There is no reason why supplementary benefit recipients should be treated differently from other claimants, and the regulation now provides that in any case where an authority considers that a person who was not previously liable to pay rent and/or rates in respect of his present accommodation has created an agreement to pay rent and/or rates to take advantage of the housing benefits scheme, it may treat him as not entitled to housing benefit.
I should mention briefly the more favourable provision of the regulations, which no other hon. Member mentioned during the debate. The definition of rent in the housing benefits regulations covers payments made by former tenants if they continue to occupy the accommodation after the tenancy agreement has been terminated. It was always the intention that payments made by former licensees should also be eligible for benefit. However, we were advised that the previous definition did not cover such payments.
It might be helpful if I explained the sort of case that could be involved. One example would be a family living in Crown property, where the husband, who was the tenant, no longer lived with his wife and children in the home. Although the wife was a regular occupant of the property, she would not have been entitled to housing benefit, but she would have had to continue to make payments for rent while the family remained in the home. The amendment puts that right and enables her to receive housing benefit. I understand that this point is of special importance to some people formerly living in service accommodation.
Much has been made of consultation on the regulations. The regulations were made as much as anything to protect local authorities from the extremely difficult and anomalous tasks that they had to face as a result of one unintended loophole, and one device deliberately contrived to exploit the regulations. As I explained to the local authority associations in writing, there are bound to be occasions when we must move quickly in the interests of efficient local administration of the scheme. Of course, central and local government must work in partnership in this, and I regret that, on this occasion, one association evidently believes that we have not done so. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Derby, South that the Social Security Advisory Committee agreed not to have the regulations referred to it in advance, because it accepted that they were either beneficial or essential. In other words, it accepted that this was a proper use of the emergency provisions under the social security legislation in relation to references to the Social Security Advisory Committee.

Mrs. Beckett: I was under the impression that it had been agreed that the first part of these regulations should not be referred to the SSAC but that particularly contentious regulations were to be referred to it. I believe that that appears on the back of the regulations.

Mr. Newton: May I look further into that matter? If I have misstated the position, I shall be very happy to correct it. I should not want to mislead the House.
The SSAC accepted that the use of the urgent procedure was appropriate. There was only a brief consultation period, because we felt that we had to move quickly, in view of the nature of the changes that we were seeking to make. We did all that we could to facilitate quick consultation, including offers to meet to discuss the proposals with the associations — offers that were not taken up. I accept that it would have been easier both for us and for the associations if more time had been available, but that would have made life acutely difficult for some of the local authorities administering the scheme, which in some places were faced with a considerable number of applications to exploit the scheme in a way that was never intended and which added unreasonably to their administrative problems.

Mr. Beith: The phrase the Minister has used is precisely the kind of phrase that led at least some of the local authorities to believe that the Department is telling them not even to pay those claims that were valid under the regulations before 19 December. Will he please do something to unravel this confusion and remove the injustice whereby people in some local authority areas are being told that, on the say-so of the Minister's Department, they are not entitled to benefit when in fact they are?

Mr. Newton: I shall turn straight away to the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The position, as I understand it, is that there is no provision for backdating claims to housing benefit. If a claim was made before the change in the regulations, some discretion may be available to the local authority, but no provision is made under the regulations for backdating a claim. Therefore, any claim made after 19 December could not be backdated.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware of the injustice of that position, particularly in the case of those people who were advised before 19 December that their claims could not be entertained, because it was then thought that there was no entitlement? Therefore, people were discouraged from making claims. Is there any justice in the Minister's statement? And is not either the local authority or the Minister likely to find that they are arraigned before the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Local Government Commissioner if this line of argument is pursued?

Mr. Newton: I am not deploying a line of argument. I am simply stating that I have been advised that there is no provision within the housing benefit regulations for the backdating of a claim. Local authorities must make their own judgments about the legal position under the housing benefit regulations. It is not appropriate for me to determine what those judgments should be. However, the advice I have received is that there is no provision for backdating claims under the housing benefit regulations. There may be a provision for backdating an award once a successful claim has been made but that is not quite the same point.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend inviting the House to believe that the regulations are made by some power exterior to the House of Commons who is in his Department? If the regulations are clearly nonsense because people were told that they were not entitled to what they were entitled to, it is open to my hon. Friend or to the Secretary of State to lay amending regulations before the House. My hon. Friend cannot claim that the regulations are outside the control of the Government. He must give a proper answer to that point.

Mr. Newton: I am sorry if I have caused my hon. Friend some consternation. I hope that I have not in any way misled the House or suggested that I am attempting to discard Government responsibility for the housing benefit regulations or the possibility of the Government putting before the House potential changes in those regulations which the House can then seek to agree or disagree as it sees fit. All I have been seeking to do is to set before the House what I am advised is the position under the regulations, which is that there is no provision for the back-dating of claims.
Having been taken aback by the question of the hon. Member for Derby, South, let me confirm that I have been assured that the SSAC did agree in both cases that it was appropriate and reasonable for the urgency provision to be used.
I do not accept that in pressing on with the changes we have disregarded our obligation to consult. Indeed, the facts do not bear that out. There were two stages of consultation. The associations were given two weeks to comment on the proposals to close the loophole affecting non-dependants' ability to claim housing benefit on the rent element of their board and lodging charge and on the technical change in the definition of rent.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and the London Boroughs Association all replied within the period that we asked, or within a day or two. They were given only a week to comment on the third proposal about joint tenancies because that issue arose at a later stage. However, we received comments from the AMA and from the other associations before the regulations were made. However inconvenient the short notice, they were able to reply; and I am grateful for that. Therefore, views were in practice sought and received, and they were taken into account in our formulation of the regulations.
However, as I have already said, I am unhappy that this problem has arisen and that the AMA in particular feels that it was not properly consulted; we shall be writing to the associations forthwith to offer a meeting to discuss how consultation might proceed in future in order to reach a better basis of understanding with them. I hope that there will be a mutual agreement about how urgent matters can best be dealt with.
At the moment, we are still unaware of what changes, if any, the AMA would wish to see in the regulations. My earlier understanding was that it did not object to their substance. If it does have comments of substance on them, we shall be more than happy to consider them. Having checked the mounting abuses of the scheme by making the regulations in December we can consider further changes to them if there are respects in which any association thinks that further change is needed. If the case for such changes is made out, there can be further consultation on the details of those changes, perhaps with less urgency

than we felt necessary in December when the abuses still had to be checked. We shall be writing to the associations tomorrow to explain all that.
I hope that I have explained the regulations to the House, and, in particular, why we felt that they were needed to close the loopholes, and with some urgency. I hope also that I have been able to deal with at least some of the points that hon. Members have raised. However, I hope that, having heard those explanations and comments, the House will not accept the prayer tabled by the Opposition.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 121.

Division No. 104]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Home Robertson, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barron, Kevin
Johnston, Russell


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beith, A. J.
Maxton, John


Boyes, Roland
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Patchett, Terry


Bruce, Malcolm
Penhaligon, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Pike, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dixon, Donald
Wainwright, R.


Eadie, Alex



Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Freud, Clement
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Haynes, Frank





NOES


Amess, David
Galley, Roy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baldry, Tony
Gregory, Conal


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bellingham, Henry
Ground, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Blackburn, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Key, Robert


Cope, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Couchman, James
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Farr, Sir John
Lilley, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David John






Madel, David
Pollock, Alexander


Major, John
Portillo, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Mather, Carol
Powley, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Price, Sir David


Merchant, Piers
Proctor, K. Harvey


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Raffan, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Newton, Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Raymond


Norris, Steven



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Noes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Page, Sir John (Harrow W) 
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

PETITIONS

Human Embryos

Mr. Russell Johnston: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to present a petition entitled
Petition for the Protection of the Human Embryo
that has been signed by 1,589 of my constituents in Inverness, Carrbridge, Tomatin, Farr, Croy, Fort William, Kinlochleven, Wester Lochaber and Ardnamurchan, mainly from church congregations of the Free Presbyterian, Free Church, Church of Scotland and the Baptist persuasion, but also from other denominations and the general public.
The essence of the petition, which is in the same form as others that have been presented, is the assertion that the human embryo has a right of protection of the same kind as is afforded to a developed human being.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves the purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment … And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I beg to ask leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Buses

Mr. Don Dixon: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the people of Jarrow regarding the White Paper on buses which is now enshrined in the Transport Bill which had its Second Reading this week. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) is here, because both he and I have at many meetings pointed out the dangers in the recommendations of the White Paper.
This petition contains almost 2,000 signatures. The people are concerned that the recommendations in the White Paper, now enshrined in the Transport Bill, will affect them adversely. In my constituency of Jarrow we have miners not millionaires, engineers not racketeers, shipbuilders not shipowners. There is a very low car ownership. The people will be hit hard by the legislation. It is a pity the Government did not attack car owners for the £2,000 million which is alleged to have been lost to the Chancellor through evasion.
I pay tribute to Len Symes and Hugh Carlin who organised the papers for the people to come to sign. They did not even have to take the petition round, because the people were so concerned about how the legislation would affect them. In my constituency, one out of every two people relies on housing benefit and one out of every three is out of work.
The petition says:
To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the citizens of the Jarrow Constituency.
SHEWETH
That the proposals contained in the White Paper on Buses will have a detrimental effect on the residents of the Jarrow


Constituency who use public transport, will put in jeopardy the Tyne and Wear integrated transport system known as one of the best transport systems in the world.
Will put under threat the concessionary bus passes used by pensioners, disabled, unemployed and school children, and will cause further loss of jobs in the transport industry in an area of already high unemployment and will have a damaging effect on the wages and working conditions for those who are left in the transport industry.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport not to put into effect the proposals of the White Paper on Buses.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Severe Weather Payments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Gordon Brown: The purpose of the Adjournment debate is to secure guarantees from the Minister about the future of heating additions for the 2·5 million households who depend on them and to ask the Minister now as a matter of urgency to make exceptionally severe weather payments available to thousands of the poorest pensioners and low-income households throughout the whole of Britain who are being denied urgently needed help because of his Department's system for administering Single Payments Regulation No. 26 on exceptionally severe weather allowances. It is a system that has never been debated or discussed in the House until tonight. It is a system that has no statutory authority whatsoever. It is a system that has so redefined our view of what is exceptionally severe weather that in some cases old people would have to freeze to death before any payments would be offered.
When respectable medical evidence shows that up to 900,000 old people in this country could be at risk from hypothermia, when deaths from cold and cold-induced diseases could have risen by as much as 40 per cent. during this winter period of bad weather, when many pensioners tell me and my hon. Friends that they have to choose in this cold spell between heating and eating, no one can deny that the cold weather and the Government's pitifully inadequate response to it has brought suffering and hardship on a national scale and is a national disgrace.
Single Payments Regulation No. 26 provides that cash help will be made available to the poorest of supplementary benefit claimants where there has been a period of exceptionally severe weather and where fuel bills are higher than normal as a result. Under that regulation, in 1982 the Department made payments amounting to nearly £4 million to 280,000 supplementary benefit claimants, including many thousands of pensioners. But since 1982 not a penny has been paid out. Until a month ago, not a penny had been offered to any claimants, simply because of the invention by the Department in 1982 of a new formula for administering the scheme. That formula has no legal standing; that formula has been described as legally irrelevant by the only social security tribunal that has scrutinised it; that formula, I have been advised, would not stand up in any court of law — at least in Scotland — because of the Court of Session Act 1868 that obliges public bodies to fulfil their statutory obligations.
Quite simply, what the Government have done is to redefine what exceptionally severe weather is. According to the Government, exceptionally severe weather does not exist in most of the country, even if the temperature is consistently below freezing point every day for a week, or even for a month. According to the Government, exceptionally severe weather does not exist in northern parts of the country—and Scotland in particular—even if the temperature hovers between zero and minus 4 deg.C or minus 5 deg.C each day for weeks on end. According to the Government, exceptionally severe weather does not exist even if temperatures fall as low as minus 23 deg.C — as they did on one day last month in the north of


Scotland — or if, in some areas, the temperature has been as low as freezing point for six days and is between zero and minus 30 deg.C on the seventh day.
The Government have decreed that our weather is almost never sufficiently cold to qualify as being exceptionally severe. By underestimating the degree of cold and by underestimating the need for heating, the Department and the Government are conspiring to underpay needy claimants. They have done it by the invention of a cold weather formula consisting of four elements, all of which are of dubious legal and technical standing.
On the Department's own admission, the heating needs of claimants are calculated from standards designed to measure and monitor temperature levels not in people's homes, but in factories. Pensioners with only a one-bar electric heater are assumed to have the same heating needs and requirements as factory workers surrounded by electrical equipment, power-loading equipment, lifts and even central heating. The assumption behind the regulation and formula is that 15·5 deg.C is an adequate temperature for an old person at home, when all respectable evidence shows that at that temperature pensioners are dangerously close to the risk of hypothermia.
The last Conservative Government of 1972 published what they called simple guidance notes for those engaged in helping old people, in which they said that with a temperature at freezing point outside, to keep old people warm in winter the living room temperature should be about 70 deg.F, which is about 21 deg.C.
If in 1972, when the present Secretary of State for Education and Science was Secretary of State for Social Services, the official view was that the safe temperature at freezing point in pensioners' homes was 21 deg.C why, under the present Government, is the safe temperature only 15·5 deg.C, 5·5 deg. less, and for some people the difference between life and death?
Have the heating needs of pensioners changed during the last 12 years? Have pensioners somehow become more resistant to the cold? Or have the Government changed in that they are pursuing policies that are vindictive even beyond monetarism?
The heating formula is even more flawed. Benefit is triggered for pensioners and others, if at all, not by how cold it actually is but by how much colder it has been than the coldest temperatures of the last 20 years. The colder it was in the past, the colder it must become for claimants to benefit. To claim for benefit, temperatures must stand at zero in places such as Aberporth, but at minus 3 deg. in Aberdeen; at 0·5 deg. above freezing point in Plymouth and the south-west, but at 2·5 deg. below freezing in Glasgow and most of Strathclyde.
Does the Minister expect the nation seriously to believe that pensioners in Cowdenbeath in my constituency are somehow less sensitive to cold than are pensioners in Kent; that families in Braemar in the north have lower fuel bills than families in Bournemouth; that the very old are less at risk from hypothermia in the Shetlands than in Surbiton?
This absurd system has already been declared irrelevant by the only social security tribunal seriously to have scrutinised it. When, in addition to all these matters, temperatures to calculate the qualification for benefit are

gathered at only 19 weather stations in the country, some more than 100 miles away from where pensioners and others live, and when, for administrative convenience, five or six days of cold weather, however severe, are not enough to justify help, surely that social security tribunal which scrutinised the formula was right to conclude that the formula is arbitrary and that the DHSS has been unable to elucidate, explain and justify the reasons for it.
If heating an entire home with a one-bar fire were comparable with maintaining the temperature in a busy factory; if abrupt changes in temperature were to conform to the Department's idea of a weekly cycle; if it were true that old people in the country's colder areas were somehow less at risk of death by cold; if we were prepared to discount the Department of Energy's view of the whole system as unsatisfactory and not a reliable indicator of fuel needs among pensioners; if the best judges, as the formula implies, of the needs of pensioners for heating was the Factory Inspectorate of the Department of Energy, advised by Meteorological Office weather stations 100 miles away and reporting to statisticians burrowing in the weather records of 20 years ago, we might be able to convince ourselves that nobody died from hypothermia.
I am not accusing Ministers of lying about the weather. But they are, to say the least, guilty of meteorological inexactitudes when, no matter how cold it is, the sun shines out of their statistics—and for one purpose only; to cheat pensioners and other poor families of a few pence by way of allowance. Here are a Government who put saving money before saving lives, even when the sums involved are minuscule and when the lives involved are the most frail and vulnerable in society.
Rather than reassess the level of benefits for old people, the Government are prepared to reassess the level of weather at which benefits are paid, making weather at freezing point too generous, Siberian conditions too warm and Arctic temperatures too kind for a cold weather benefit.
The Minister will say that the new formula is the nearest objective test available for defining exceptionally severe weather. He will say that it was not conjured up with the objective of saving money and will speak in the way that the Prime Minister has constantly tried to assure us of the Government's generosity towards pensioners. If the Government are so generous, may we be told why, before the formula was invented, 250,000 claimants, many of them pensioners, benefited, whereas since then not one claimant has received a penny?
If the Minister is so generous, why is it estimated in my constituency and other constituencies that, under the formula, help would have been given to pensioners and others in only three weeks of all the winter weeks of the last 20 years? Why have statisticians, fuel efficiency inspectors and weather men been engaged in conducting surveys of dubious value at vast cost to the Exchequer, invariably to conclude that no Exchequer costs need to be incurred in helping pensioners and others with their fuel bills?
The fact is that a legal regulation which, if properly implemented, would give help to 250,000 people—the poorest citizens — has been systematically and deliberately undermined by a formula of dubious standing under which almost no one can benefit. Having deliberately forced up gas prices by more than 100 per cent. in four years, having deliberately forced up electricity prices by 74 per cent. in the four years from


1979, but having allowed pensions to increase by only 50 per cent.—half as much as the increase in gas prices—having made many thousands of pensioners £1 a week worse off with the so-called uprating in November last year, the Government can make no claim to have been generous to the elderly. In Scotland — I am surprised that no Scottish Minister is here this evening — the Scottish Office is so generous to the elderly that, because of a cost-cutting exercise, it has withdrawn what it calls "hypothermia thermometers" which were issued last winter to old people and which could be life-saving devices for many people.
Because the formula under which benefits are denied has no legal basis and no statutory authority, the Government should now concede for every low-income household a special payment to help with crippling fuel bills. They should urgently investigate the possibility of introducing a hypothermia warning whereby, in weeks during which the weather is deteriorating, people are warned of the risk of hypothermia and neighbours and relatives are alerted to the need to provide assistance to elderly people. The Government should urge old people to use their heating and offer to pay the additional costs in their gas and electricity bills.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister told the House that the Department of Health and Social Security was reviewing the system of cold weather allowances. She said specifically:
there is a review of these provisions, and that is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security." — [Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1101.]
This week, when I asked about the nature of the review, its terms of reference, the committee members and the evidence that is to be invited, the Minister could only say:
the Government are looking at the provision for meeting special expenses of this sort in the context of the supplementary benefit review". — [Official Report, 11 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 76.]
That is not a special review of the provisions for severe weather payments and not a review that is being carried out within DHSS. We all know that the supplementary benefit review has reported to the Minister; the Minister has now reported to the Cabinet; and the review has completed its work. The Cabinet is now discussing the recommendation. Having cynically undermined their own laws since 1972, having underestimated the needs of the community, and having done their best to withhold the most meagre of benefits from the poor, the Government are now retreating under smokescreen of a now completed review from all responsibility in this matter.
Now that these social security reviews have reported to Cabinet, I have to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether these reviews recommend the amendment and improvement of the exceptionally severe weather allowances to ensure proper help during this cold weather. Do they — as most of us fear — recommend their abolition so that the benefit will not be paid, no matter how cold the weather? Can the Under-Secretary of State give us a guarantee that pensioners and others — the 2·5 million householders which depend on heating additions — will not, as most of us fear, lose this vital help altogether under cover of a review which is becoming a cynical and heartless raid on the poorest and weakest in our society?
When the lives of elderly people are at risk, the House has a right to expect answers which are more detailed and

frank than the empty rhetoric we have had so far from the Prime Minister and other Ministers. So that the cynical reassurances that the Prime Minister has given us do not become a callous betrayal in the spring, the House has a right to expect some detailed answers from the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Ray Whitney.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): rose—

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the Under-Secretary of State. In an Adjournment debate, hon. Members need the agreement of both the hon. Member whose debate it is and the Minister.

12 midnight

Mr. Whitney: I am delighted to offer the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) some direct answers, in particular having heard such a farrago of misrepresentations. I am more pleased than I thought that I would be to offer corrections to his facts. First, we must put the situation into perspective — and after those flights of fancy, that is particularly necessary. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been seeking to fill the Scottish media with similar fantasies in the past few weeks.
Payments for exceptional weather conditions represent only a small addition to the great help with heating costs that the Government give to those in need in Scotland and elsewhere. We spend billions of pounds on social security, and we have maintained all the major benefit rates ahead of rises in prices during the lifetime of this Government. We are now spending no less than £400 million a year on extra fuel for consumers on low incomes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in fuel prices, but he should consider that there were times, under the Labour Government, when he was not in the House, when fuel prices were increasing by 2 per cent. every six weeks. During the period of this Government, while fuel prices have increased by about 108 per cent. between November 1978 and November 1984, the heating additions paid in the supplementary benefit scheme have increased by 147 per cent. over the same period.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a pitiful and inadequate response, but he should study the record of the Labour Government.
He spoke about hypothermia among pensioners, but he should study the rise in fuel energy costs during the dreadful years of the Labour Government.
All that means that, despite the inescapable constraints on public expenditure, the least well-off in society, be they pensioners or others, are better off than they were when the Conservative Administration took office in 1979.

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose—

Mr. Whitney: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has left me little time to make the many corrections that I must put to the House.
The least well-off in our society have substantially higher additions to pay for the fuel that they need to keep warm than they did when the Labour Government were in office. Quite apart from ignoring those major facts, the


remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East showed that he, like many other people, is mixing up—I suspect sometimes deliberately—two separate issues.
One issue is whether those on supplementary benefit, and who are therefore likely to have their financial affairs on weekly budgets which are very tightly balanced, should be given a little extra help when the weather becomes extremely severe and those budgets come under strain.
The other issue is whether there should be permanent differences in the rate of supplementary benefit paid in various parts of the country to take account of the fact that some parts generally have somewhat lower temperatures than others.
Let me deal, first, with the question of the special payments for exceptionally severe weather conditions. It is important here to make absolutely clear what we are talking about. The essential basis of the "exceptionally severe weather" provision is that it is an emergency arrangement to provide budgeting help, if necessary, in periods of exceptionally—and I stress the word—

Dr. M. S. Miller: Get off the brief!

Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he would learn a great deal to his advantage. He has only just arrived.
Severe weather means conditions so bad that the claimant could not be expected to foresee and budget for the fuel that he used.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman should leave his brief for a moment and look at the humanitarian aspects of this matter. People are dying of hypothermia, not only in Scotland but in every part of the country. I know that the hon. Gentleman is humanitarian, and he should not be sticking to a brief that he has been given by his civil servants. Instead he should be seeing what he can do to improve the situation.

Mr. Whitney: We have paid considerably more in heating addition than the Labour Government — £140 million more. Of course we are concerned about the problems suffered by old people because of the cold, but we are showing that concern in a practical manner which the Labour Government did not.
Payments before 1980 were made at the discretion of the local DHSS office or of individual officers. The rules were not made public and no objective test was applied. The regulated scheme was introduced in 1980, but there were still problems in applying the scheme in the winter of 1982. Following that winter, the Chief Adjudication Officer decided to introduce a new system which would be clearer and fairer in its operation. In consultation with the Meteorological Office, he devised an objective means of deciding when payments were due and how much should be paid. Details of those procedures are available in the House. The details are clear, and any hon. Member can study them.
The effect is that what is regarded as "exceptionally severe" weather in Cornwall might not be regarded as such in the north-east of Scotland. However, the differences are not large—the biggest being between the average daily temperature required to reach the trigger point in Aberdeen and that needed in Plymouth, which is less than 3½ deg. C.
There are other differences which many people might find surprising, particularly in view of the hullabaloo to which the public have been treated in recent weeks. For example, it has to be slightly colder in Birmingham or Suffolk than in Glasgow to reach the trigger point. The levels at which the trigger points are set reflect meteorological data collected over many years.
Hon. Members have mentioned exceptionally low temperatures reached at a particular time in a particular locality. We have heard much about Braemar. It is suggested that we use shorter and different periods and act more frequently. There is talk of temperatures reached in one day. The Chief Adjudication Officer will take note of such comments, but I must make two points clear.
First, a fairly brief cold snap—for only a few hours —would not make the difference to individual fuel bills that we are considering. Secondly, our supplementary benefit system is already complex and overburdened. One of the objectives is to simplify it.
Reference has been made to the coverage by weather stations. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said that there were 19 such stations, when there are only 17, seven of which cover Scotland. They were chosen on expert advice, and the Chief Adjudication Officer will be examining again which weather stations he should use for this purpose.
Anxiety has been expressed about the complications of the scheme and the need to publish details. We take all reasonable steps to publicise the help available. Posters are put up in local social security offices and elsewhere and claimants can obtain leaflets explaining how and when to claim. The Department also tries to ensure that the local media in the areas affected are fully briefed.
The formula might be complex, but claiming is simple. It is possible to apply a ready reckoner to the fuel bill to work out how much a claimant is entitled to.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Is the Minister defending the present system, or is he, as the Prime Minister appears to be saying, unhappy with the present system? Does he realise that it is possible for the DHSS to discard the formula and to pay the benefit now?

Mr. Whitney: I am seeking to set right the hon. Gentleman's complete misapprehension, which he is seeking to carry throughout Scotland for his own well-known political reasons. When he understands that, we shall go on to discuss what we propose to do in the future.
Let me now deal with the issue with which the concept of payments for exceptionally severe weather conditions is frequently confused — the idea that there should be some sort of "cold climate allowance" for particular parts of the country. Like Ministers in previous Governments, we have consistently taken the view that there are strong arguments against any deviation from the principle of national benefit levels. Apart from heating, there are many regional variations in prices which affect the amounts which people spend on different items. It would be possible to make a case, for example, based on the variation in transport costs in different parts of the country, and others would seek to point to other variations in living costs. If we do that, the task of setting and changing all the benefit rates each year would become impossibly complicated, at a time when one of our objectives is to make the system simpler and therefore better understood by claimants. Besides that, there is evidence that there is


little variation between the amounts spent, on average, on fuel by people in different parts of Great Britain, and that that remains true at all levels of income.
In conclusion, let me return to the issue of payments for exceptionally severe weather conditions. I should stress that this winter is the first time that this new objective method has been triggered, and I know that the Chief Adjudication Officer will be looking carefully at the guidance he has issued in the light of experience gained this winter—

Dr. M. S. Miller: People are dying.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman says that people are dying. Many more people would be likely to die if we were to make payments for heating of the kind that the Labour Government made. The Chief Adjudication Officer will no doubt be considering whether any changes are called for.
More generally, I would remind the House, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, that we are looking carefully at all the provisions for meeting special expenses of that sort in the context of the review of the supplementary benefit system. It must be right to await the

outcome of this fundamental exaination of the whole scheme which we have been conducting before taking further decisions on the future of this particular regulation.
I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight about the deliberate confusion that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and many of his hon. Friends and members of the Scottish National party have sought to sow in the minds of many people in Scotland. It is not a cold climate allowance; it is help with exceptional budget circumstances occasioned by changes in climate. The allowance is available to people north and south of the border on published, known and objective criteria.
I understand that this approach gives Opposition Members problems, but I am sure, now the matter has been explained, that at least fair-minded people—I must exclude Opposition Members who have listened to the debate—will understand the objective.
The main help with heating, as with all other assistance on supplementary benefit, relies on social security payments which have increased in real terms since the Government came into office by no less than 27 per cent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.